Why Taiwanese Companies and Foundations Donate to Public

WHY TAIWANESE COMPANIES AND FOUNDATIONS DONATE TO PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN TAIWAN: AN INVESTIGATION OF DONATION INCENTIVES, STRATEGIES, AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

A dissertation submitted to the Kent State University College and Graduate School of Education, Health, and Human Services in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Hsien Hong (Joe) Lin

December, 2009

ii A dissertation written by

Hsien Hong (Joe) Lin

B.S., National Chung Hsing University, TaiChung City, Taiwan, 1994

M.B.A. Western International University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, 1999

Ph.D., Kent State University, Ohio, USA, 2009

Approved by

______, Director, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Mark A. Kretovics

______, Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Eunsook Hyun

______, Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Kenneth Cushner

Accepted by

______, Interim Director, School of Foundations, Leadership Shawn Fitzgerald and Administration

______, Dean, College and Graduate School of Daniel F. Mahony Education, Health, and Human Services

iii

Lin, Hsien Hong (Joe), Ph. D., December, 2009 Higher Education Administration and Student Personnel Affairs

WHY TAIWANESE COMPANIES AND FOUNDATIONS DONATE TO PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN TAIWAN: AN INVESTIGATION OF DONATION INCENTIVES, STRATEGIES, AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES (335 pp.)

Co-Directors of Dissertation: Mark A. Kretovics, Ph.D. Eunsook Hyun, Ph.D.

The purpose of this investigation was to build the blueprint of Taiwanese public higher education’s fundraising. This study applied three surveys (NSH, NSC, and NSF) to three populations’ samples (public universities, corporations, and foundations in

Taiwan) as well as qualitative interviews toward these three populations in order to explore Taiwan’s private organizations donations to higher education institutions. After fifteen months of data collections, this researcher obtained thirty-five samples out of fifty-five public universities, 151 survey samples and twenty-seven interview participants for Taiwanese corporations, and ninety-nine survey samples and twenty-one interview participants for Taiwanese foundations.

The findings in this study suggested that corporations in Taiwan were inclined to give funds to public universities with the capacity to improve or strengthen companies’ benefit-obtaining potential; foundations in Taiwan have an affinity for supporting public higher education institutions with the function to enhance or perform social justices and values for them. The investigation data suggested that Taiwanese public universities’ fundraising people should balance their institutions in different field developments in order to further extend or outreach funding sources in diversity. Acknowledgment

This dissertation was supported by many people’s assistance and contributions. I am not able to clearly list all of them here. My parents, Ken-Wang Lin (林根旺) and A-Mei Hsu

Lin (林徐阿梅), and my wife, Jing Zuo (左靜), are my most loyal supporters in emotional and economic sources. Especially for my wife, I thank her for experiencing the long and boring process of studying with me. In the academic training, thanks to all of the committees of the comprehensive examination and the dissertation for considerately and patiently teaching, helping, and disciplining me. They are Dr. Mark Kretovics, Dr.

Eunsook Hyun, Dr Kenneth Cushner, Dr. Mark Lyberger, and Dr. Ralph Walman. Here, I solely combine their wisdom, intelligence, efforts, and love into this rich dissertation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT...... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ...... x

LIST OF TABLES ...... xi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ...... 1 The Significance of Fundraising in Public Higher Education in Taiwan ...... 3 Public Higher Education in Taiwan ...... 3 Change in Taiwan’s Educational Policy ...... 5 Competition among Universities for Financial Resources ...... 8 Desire for Campus Autonomy and Flexibility ...... 9 Pursuit of Excellence ...... 11 Decreasing Birth Rates and Future College Enrollment ...... 13 Research Problem ...... 17 Purpose of the Study ...... 18 Research Questions ...... 19 Significance of the Study ...... 19

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE...... 21 Introduction ...... 21 The Nature and History of Fundraising ...... 23 The Nature of Fundraising ...... 23 Philanthropic Perspectives on Fundraising ...... 24 Taxation and Fundraising ...... 25 Legal Perspectives on Fundraising ...... 26 Public Relations Perspectives on Fundraising ...... 27 Multicultural Perspectives on Fundraising ...... 28 Growing Internationalization of Nongovernment Organizations ...... 30 Government Reduction and NGO Increase in Roles and Functions in the Third Sector ...... 31 History of Fundraising ...... 32 Ancient Fundraising ...... 33 Influence of Ancient Religion ...... 33 Medieval Times ...... 33 The 17th Century and afterwards ...... 34 Fundraising in the USA before 1900 ...... 35 Fundraising in the USA after 1900 ...... 36

v Era of Nonspecialists ...... 37 Era of Fundraising Consultants ...... 38 Era of Transition ...... 39 Era of Staff Fundraisers ...... 40 Fundraising in Higher Education in the USA ...... 41 Before 1900: Informal, Personalized Fundraising ...... 42 After WWII: Rise of Professional Leadership ...... 43 Fundraising in Taiwan ...... 45 Legislation of Fundraising in Taiwan ...... 45 Fundraising in Religion...... 47 Fundraising in Politics ...... 48 Fundraising in Education ...... 49 Fundraising in Times of Disaster ...... 50 Current Fundraising Strategies and Methods in Higher Education in Taiwan .... 51 Endowment Funds ...... 54 Targeting Alumni of High-Technology Programs ...... 55 Enterprise Diagnosis Clinic ...... 56 Overseas Fundraising ...... 56 Venture Capital Funds ...... 56 Related Higher Education Fundraising Research in Taiwan and the USA ...... 56 Size of Fundraising Staffs ...... 56 Age of the Institution ...... 57 Governmental Policy and Fundraising Performance of Institutions ...... 58 Conclusion ...... 58 Studies for Corporate Giving in the United States of America and Taiwan ...... 59 Introduction ...... 59 Marketing Incentives ...... 60 Tax Incentives ...... 62 Social Currency Incentives ...... 63 Public Relations Incentives ...... 64 Social Responsibility Incentives ...... 65 Motivation for Corporate Giving ...... 69 Purposes of Corporate Giving ...... 70 Strategies for Corporate Giving ...... 71 Decision-Making Process in Corporate Giving ...... 73 Philanthropic Corporate Donations to Higher Education in Taiwan ...... 73 Conclusion ...... 78 Studies for Foundation Giving in the United States of America ...... 79 Introduction ...... 79 Definition of a Foundation ...... 80 History of U. S. Foundations ...... 82 Four Types of U. S. Foundations ...... 84 Independent Foundations ...... 84 Company-Sponsored Foundations ...... 86

vi Operating Foundations ...... 87 Community Foundations ...... 88 Incentives for Foundation Giving in the U. S...... 89 Tax Effects and Tax Regulations ...... 89 Modern Foundation Giving Incentives ...... 91 Higher Education and Foundations ...... 91 Purposes ...... 92 Grants and Interaction ...... 93 Philanthropic Foundation Donation to Higher Education ...... 94 Conclusion ...... 96 Chapter Conclusions ...... 96

III METHODOLOGY ...... 98 Introduction ...... 98 Research Questions and Related Theoretical Framework ...... 100 Research Design...... 102 Mixed Methodology as Main Research Method ...... 105 Types of Mixed Method Design in This Study ...... 106 Survey Research Design Used in This Study ...... 107 National Survey of Higher Education (NSH) ...... 108 National Survey of Corporations (NSC) ...... 109 National Survey of Foundations (NSF) ...... 109 The Pilot Study for NSC ...... 110 The Pilot Study for NSF ...... 112 Validity of the NSH, NSC, and NSF ...... 115 Five Instruments...... 116 Blueprint for Five Instruments of This Research ...... 117 Correlation Research Design Applied in This Study ...... 118 Existential Phenomenology as Analyzing Instrument ...... 119 The Nature of donation in Taiwan ...... 119 Phenomenology...... 121 Existential Phenomenology ...... 124 Research Strategy...... 125 Sample Population for the Study ...... 127 The First Population ...... 127 The Second Population ...... 128 The Third Population ...... 129 Treatment of the Data ...... 132 Data Collection and Analysis for Research Question 1 (Q1) ...... 133 Data Collection and Analysis for Research Question 2 (Q2) ...... 134 Data Collection and Analysis for Research Question 3 (Q3) ...... 136 Data Collection and Analysis for Research Question 4 (Q4) ...... 136 Data Collection and Analysis for Research Question 5 (Q5) ...... 137 Limitations ...... 137

vii Chapter Summary ...... 139

IV DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ...... 141 Introduction ...... 141 Demographics of PHEIs Surveyed ...... 142 Age of the Institution ...... 142 Size of Fund-Raising Staffs ...... 142 Response to Research Question 1—In Taiwan, What Kinds of Groups Are Most Inclined to Give Funds to PHEIs? ...... 144 Findings Derived from the NSH ...... 144 Summary of Findings ...... 144 Data Analyses ...... 145 Types of Businesses Likely to Donate to PHEIs ...... 146 Attitudes towards the 1996 Self-Sufficiency Policy for PHEIs ...... 147 Statistical Analysis of the NSH Open-Ended Questions Asked of Corporate and Foundation Donors to PHEIs ...... 149 Response to Research Question 2—What Incentives Motivate These Groups to Give Funds to PHEIs in Taiwan?—Based on the NSC and NSF ...... 159 Findings Derived from the National Survey of Corporations ...... 160 Sources of NSC Participants ...... 160 Purposes of the NSC Investigation ...... 161 Demographics of NSC Participants ...... 162 Analysis of NSC Participant Variables ...... 162 Statistical Analysis of the NSC: Correlation Analysis ...... 167 Discriminant Analysis of the NSC ...... 169 Regression Analyses for NSC Participants’ Donation Decision-Making...... 171 Findings Derived from the National Survey of Foundations ...... 172 Sources of NSF Participants ...... 172 Purposes of the NSF Investigation ...... 174 Demographics of NSF Participants ...... 174 Analysis of NSF Participant Variables ...... 175 Statistical Analysis of the NSF: Correlation Analysis ...... 181 Discriminant Analysis of the NSF ...... 183 Regression Analyses for NSF Participants’ Donation Decision-Making ...... 185 Responses to Research Questions 2 Through 5 Based on Interviews with Corporate and Foundation Leaders ...... 186 Introduction ...... 186 Taiwanese Corporate Donations to Taiwan’s PHEIs: Qualitative Perspectives ...... 189 Taiwanese Foundation Donations to Taiwan’s PHEIs: Qualitative Perspectives ...... 200 Foundation Participants’ Responses to Research Questions ...... 207 Chapter Summary ...... 208

viii V EXPLORING FINDINGS ...... 210 Introduction ...... 210 Summary of Findings ...... 211 Taiwan’s PHEI Population ...... 211 Quantitative Perspectives ...... 211 Qualitative Perspectives ...... 212 Taiwan’s Corporation Population ...... 213 Quantitative Perspectives ...... 213 Qualitative Perspectives ...... 215 Taiwan’s Foundation Population ...... 218 Quantitative Perspectives ...... 218 Qualitative Perspectives ...... 221 Analysis of Study Findings ...... 223 Fundraising in Taiwan’s PHEIs ...... 223 Taiwan’s Corporate Donations to PHEIs ...... 227 Quantitative Perspectives ...... 227 Qualitative Perspectives ...... 229 Taiwan’s Foundation Donations to PHEIs ...... 245 Quantitative Perspectives ...... 245 Qualitative Perspectives ...... 246 Chapter Summary ...... 248

VI DISSERTATION CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ...... 249 Conclusions ...... 249 Limitations ...... 252 Suggestions for Further Research ...... 253 Directions for Future Research ...... 254

APPENDIXES ...... 256 A NATIONAL SURVEY OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUIONS IN TAIWAN (NSH) ...... 257 B 台灣公立大學院校問卷調查 (NSH) ...... 260 C NATIONAL SURVEY OF CORPORATIONS (NSC) ...... 263 D 台灣企業捐款公立大學院校問卷調查 (NSC) ...... 267 E NATIONAL SURVEY OF FOUNDATIONS (NSF) ...... 273 F 台灣基金會捐款公立大學院校問卷調查 (NSF)...... 278 G KEY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS (KIQ) ...... 283 H LARGE TABLES IN THE DISSERTATION...... 286 I 27 CORPORATION INTERVIEW SUMMARIES ...... 300

REFERENCES ...... 319

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 3.1 Research conducting process and question-to-solution procedure ...... 132

4.1 Statistical data between dependent and independent variables in NSH ...... 159

5.1 Distribution of seven themes and short- and long-term incentives for donating to PHEIs ...... 232

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1.1 National Taiwan University Ranked in the World from 2004 to 2008 ...... 12

1.2 Changes in Number of New Babies and Birth Rate in 1991–2008 …………………14

1.3 Number of Students Enrolled as Undergraduates in Comprehensive and Professional Universities and Colleges from 1998–2006 ...... 15

3.1 Research Methodology Unit ...... 99

3.2 National Survey of Corporations Reliability Pilot Test ...... 112

3.3 National Survey of Foundations Reliability Pilot Test ...... 114

4.1 Distribution of Full-Time Professional Fund-Raising Administrators (FAs) ...... 143

4.2 Distribution of Part-Time Professional Fundraising Administrators (FAs) ...... 144

4.3 Corporations and Foundations Donating to National Universities in Taiwan in 2008 ...... 145

4.4 Businesses and Industries Donating to National Colleges in Taiwan in 2008 ...... 146

4.5 PHEI FAs’ Opinions of the PHEI Self-Sufficiency Policy (N=35) ...... 148

4.6 Categorization of Answers to Open-Ended Question 5 on the NSH (N = 86) ...... 150

4.7 Categorization of Answers to Open-Ended Question 6 on the NSH (N=48) ...... 151

4.8 Spearman's Rho Correlation Coefficiency for FAs and Donations from Corporations and Foundations ...... 152

4.9 Independent Variables (IV) Coding List...... 154

4.10 Means and Standard Deviations of Predictors and Criterion Variables ...... 156

4.11 Correlation Coefficients between Fund-Raising and Donation ...... 157

4.12 Discriminant Analysis Outcomes ...... 159

xi 4.13 Demographics of Participants in the National Survey for Corporations ...... 161

4.14 Results of the National Survey of Corporations (NSC) ...... 165

4.15 Correlation of NSC Participants’ Background With DTP (Participants Donated to PHEI or not) ...... 168

4.16 NSC Participants’ Variables Correlated with the DTP (N=141) ...... 169

4.17 Comparison of Conditions by Discriminant Analysis for NSC Participants’ Donations to PHEIs (α = .05) ...... 170

4.18 Standardized Canonical Coefficients of Discriminant Function for NSC ...... 172

4.19 Demographics of Participants in the National Survey for Foundations ...... 175

4.20 Results of National Survey of Foundation (NSF) ...... 177

4.21 Correlation of NSF Participants’ Background with DTP (Participants Donated to PHEI or not) ...... 181

4.22 NSF Participant Variables Correlated with DTP (Participants Donated To PHEI Or Not) ...... 183

4.23 Comparison of Three Conditions by Discriminant Analysis of NSF Participants’ Decision-Making Process When Donating to PHEIs (α = .01) ...... 184

4.24 Standardized Canonical Coefficients of Discriminant Function for NSF ...... 186

4.25 Demographics of Corporate Interviewees ...... 191

4.26 Relationship of Major Codes and Research Questions ...... 192

4.27 Corporate Interviewees’ Answers to Research Question 2 ...... 193

4.28 Corporate Interviewees’ Answers to Research Question 3 ...... 194

4.29 Corporate Interviewees’ Answers to Research Question 4 ...... 196

4.30 Corporate Interviewees’ Answers to Research Question 5 ...... 197

4.31 Demographics of Interviewees from Foundations ...... 202

4.32 List of Major Codes from Foundation Participants ...... 203

xii 5.1 Seven Considerations for Five Basic Donation Incentives in the USA ...... 238

5.2 Major Taiwanese Corporation Giving Incentives ...... 238

5.3 Seven Considerations Underlying Incentives for Corporate Donations to Taiwan’s PHEIs ...... 240

5.4 Categories of Education Donations Incentives Explaining Why Companies Donate to So-Called Better Schools in Taiwan ...... 241

H1 Corporate Interviewees’ Responses to Research Questions 2 through 5 ...... 287

H2 Summary of Taiwanese Foundation Participants’ Responses to Research Questions ...... 291

H3 Taiwanese Corporate Population’s Major Incentives to Donate to PHEIs ...... 294

H4 Taiwan’s Corporate Population’s Donation Decisions to Choose Which PHEIs .... 294

H5 Taiwan’s Corporate Population’s Responses to Research Q4 ...... 295

H6 Factors or Variables Influencing the PHEI Fundraising Network with Corporations ...... 296

H7 Taiwan’s Foundation Population’s Major Incentives to Donate to PHEIs ...... 297

H8 Taiwan’s Foundation Population’s Donation Decisions to Choose PHEIs ……….297

H9 Taiwan’s Foundation Population’s Responses to Research Q4 ...... 298

H10 Factors or Variables Influencing the PHEI Fundraising Network With Foundations ...... 299

xiii CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Fundraising has increased in importance to higher education worldwide (Grant &

Anderson, 2002). In The Worldwide Fundraiser’s Handbook, Norton (2003) explored the reasons underlying the increase in fundraising activities among nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), such as for an organization’s “survival, expansion, development”

(p.13), independency, and “constituency” (p. 14) as well as government failures and overwhelming natural crisis damages. With a good fundraising system public colleges and universities are able not only to reduce their dependence on specific financial supports, such as state appropriations, but also build a constituency to develop and foster their service and business (Wagner, 2005).

Taiwan’s public higher education institutions (PHEIs) are no exception in the quest for funds. At the time of this writing, Taiwan was in the process of transitioning the funding of public higher education from a conventional centralized allocation of financial resources to a competitive, independent fundraising model (M. Chang, 2000; Chen, 2002;

Huang, 2003; Mok, 2002; Teng, 2002; Tsai, 1996; Yu, 1997). This transition ushered in a new era of fundraising for Taiwan’s universities and colleges, especially public ones.

Although PHEIs in Taiwan are up to the challenge, their funding system must be altered to accommodate competitiveness, professionalism, and diversity. A model similar to the one in place in the United States may serve Taiwan well (Cutlip, 1990; Kelly, 1998; Pray,

1981; Rhodes, 1997; Sargeant & Jay, 2004; Worth, 2002a). The suggestion to apply

American fundraising models derives from the higher education policy put in place by

the Taiwan government in 1996. This policy requires that, first, all PHEIs in Taiwan

establish and manage independent endowments and then fund these endowments by

themselves in accordance with financial self-sufficiency goals set by the Ministry of

Education in Taiwan. Higher education is so competitive all over the world that many nations have specific policies that are applying U. S. fundraising models, such as

Taiwan’s 1996 PHEI self-sufficiency, to raise their higher education programs to superior levels. Other Asian countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong already have higher education funds in place to support the change from national appropriation to partial self- sufficiency, and now Taiwanese PHEIs must develop fundraising strategies to meet the requirements of governmental policy.

American systems and theories of private higher educational fundraising constitute a fundraising organism with a long, prestigious history (Cook & Lasher, 1996;

Kelly, 1998). Ever since the establishment of Harvard University in 1636, the practical and theoretical systems that make up American fundraising have continuously changed and improved; consequently, many nations, such as Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, and

Malaysia, have studied U.S. models in order to enhance the capabilities of their colleges and universities to compete with esteemed higher education institutions around the world.

These circumstances and conditions motivated the researcher’s decision to apply

American fundraising models in this dissertation to examine Taiwan’s PHEI fundraising markets.

The history and development of American fundraising may provide Taiwan with a valuable reference for legislating its higher education fundraising policies. In order to

understand how Taiwan has legislated fundraising in higher education, the first aim of

this study was to articulate and define the fundraising methods in place in higher

education in Taiwan at the time of this writing. The researcher adapted the American

model of fundraising development to analyze Taiwan’s higher education fundraising

performance to date, furthermore inquiring into Taiwan’s patterns and processes of

fundraising in higher education by positioning them in the framework of America’s

fundraising development. The other aim of the study was to explore the relationship

between corporations or foundations and PHEIs from the perspective of corporations and

foundations in Taiwan. This chapter, which illuminates educational, political, and general fundraising practices in Taiwan, provides a backdrop to fundraising in higher education there.

Significance of Fundraising in Public Higher Education in Taiwan

Public Higher Education in Taiwan

Comparing higher education institutions (HEI), populations, and graduates in both years of 1998 and 2008 is helpful in drawing a blueprint for Taiwan’s public higher education institutions (PHEIs) for the future. Only 40% of Taiwan’s high school graduates typically earn scores high enough on the competitive annual university entrance examination to gain admission to PHEIs. According to statistical data compiled by Taiwan’s government (MoE, 2009), about 75% of the HE population typically enrolls at private HEIs; and the remaining 25% attend PHEIs. In 1998 the entire HE population, including junior college students, was 862,051 students; that translated into 644,232 students (74.7%) at private HEIs and 217,819 students (24.3%) at PHEIs. In 2008, the

entire HE population comprised 1,123,755 students, 844,819 (75.2%) of whom were

enrolled at private HEIs and 278,936 (24.8%) at PHEIs. In 1998, a total of 137 HE

institutions were in operation in Taiwan. These included 88 private institutions, of which

47 were private junior colleges, 23 were private colleges, and 18 were private

universities. During the same year the 49 PHEIs in operation included 6 public junior

colleges, 22 public colleges, and 21 public universities. In 2008, a total of 162 HE

institutions were in operation. Of those, 109 were private HEIs, including 12 private

junior colleges, 37 private colleges, and 60 private universities; whereas the 53 PHEIs

included 3 public junior colleges, 8 public colleges, and 42 public universities. HEI

graduates in Taiwan in 1998 numbered 208,307, of whom 153,530 (73.7%) had been

educated in private HEIs; in 2007, graduates of Taiwan’s HEIs totaled 266,013, of whom

202,319 (76%) attended private HEIs.

During the continual educational reforms of the 1990s, changes took place in the fundamentals of higher education in Taiwan, the national education framework, and parental expectation. Taiwan’s higher education had been conservative and lacking creativity in educational regulations and systems, each PHEI ostensibly belonging to the

Taiwan government with the ruling party controlling all aspects. In 1994 education experts and scholars launched the 410 Educational Reform League to motivate Taiwan’s government to introduce and perpetuate educational reforms. In general, PHEIs faced societal pressure to change in addition to challenges specific to each campus. The former entailed the change in Taiwan’s higher education system from elitist to egalitarian as well as the increase in the enrollment and interuniversity and global competition. The latter

5 entailed how to (a) raise and manage PHEI campus funds to comply with government policies, (b) renew or update PHEI administrative organization to implement government education policies, (c) discover new economic resources, and (d) confront the lack of resources. In particular education reforms included PHEI financial resource reallocation.

Generally speaking, fundraising is important in terms of social change, policy change, industrial influences, campus movements, and academic development, all of which impact one another: Shifts in social concept promotes all of them. Articles and papers related to the development of fundraising and change in higher education policy and a review of the growth of higher education in Taiwan revealed five factors or social phenomena motivating fundraising in higher education: (a) change in Taiwan’s educational policies, Taiwan government changed its educational policies in order to improve its education systems and to reflect Taiwan’s many groups’ concerns or needs,

(b) competition among universities for financial resources, governmental policy changes

(c) desire for campus autonomy and flexibility, (d) pursuit of excellence, and (e) the decreasing birth rates and future college enrollment.

Change in Taiwan’s Educational Policy

In contrast to what Westerners or Easterners may think, independent fundraising systems are both necessary and inevitable for higher education institutions to support their budgets. For example, prior to the 1980s, the government of Taiwan controlled all

PHEIs under martial law (Dumbaugh, 2006). Fortunately, when it was lifted in 1987, this island-state was revitalized with creativity and prosperity (Y. Su, 2009). Basic constitutional human rights were guaranteed, including the right to form political parties

6 and the right to assemble (Dumbaugh; Moody, 1992; Tan, 2006). After abolishing martial law the Taiwanese government developed its domestic economy at full speed and wisely prepared to build the infrastructure for information technology (Li, Li, Ranis, & Fei,

1995). With substantial progress in the economy, people’s incomes increased and their standard of living rose (Rawnsley, 2010); however, the traditional educational models and processes, even policies, were outdated and met neither students’ needs nor parents’ expectations (Lee, 2008; Tu, 2007; S. Yang, 2001). Naturally, many Taiwanese people expected and petitioned the government to enact educational reforms to ensure a bright future for subsequent generations; therefore, from the 1990s to the time of this writing, the Ministry of Education (MoE) in Taiwan took the trial-and-error approach to designing educational reform (Lee; S. Yang). No policy in the world can please everyone, so various organizations have criticized each educational reform policy; however, a proposal that allows national universities and colleges to privatize seemed to be a viable solution.

Because Taiwan’s economy plummeted in the 1990s, the government could not fully support all PHEIs with financial resources because of “the sharp increase [in] expenditures in social welfare [as well as the] rapid expansion of higher education” (Yu,

1997). Kingdon (1995) stated, “The recession and the competition for funding by public schools, criminal justice, health care, and welfare had restricted the revenues available for higher education” (as cited in Burke, 2002, p. 17). Government officials wanted to learn about fundraising models used in state universities and colleges in the USA in order to reduce the financial pressure on the Taiwanese government from the public education system (Yu).

Prior to 1990, the MoE still utilized a two-system governance for higher education; that is, PHEIs were fully supported by the government, and private universities were controlled by the private organizations (Y. M. Wu, 1998). In the 1990s the MoE maintained the two-system governance but shrank PHEI appropriations. In 1995 five PHEIs formed the University Operation Funds (UOFs), which were temporarily testable endowments for five PHEIs. The MoE assigned five PHEIs with target rates of self-sufficiency in their annual expenditure budgets around 25%. Since 1996 Taiwanese government officials have gradually reduced financial appropriations to national universities and colleges. This policy accompanied a pilot program in which several selected national universities independently raised their own funds to meet at least 20% of their total annual expenditure budgets. This policy was firmly in place by the time of this writing, and all members of society as well as higher education personnel uniformly understood that the privatization of national universities and colleges was unavoidable. In

1996 eight PHEIs achieved 24% self-sufficiency, and in 1997 another 13 PHEIs raised

20% of their budgets themselves (MoE, 2002). The MoE set a goal for each PHEI to produce 30% of its budget, a portion usually derived from three sources: government- supported research, fundraising, and continuing education classes. According to the researcher’s interview of an official in the MoE, the average pure fundraising share of the

PHEIs’ entire budget was about 3%. In 2000 the MoE faced educational budget cuts between 10 and 15% for the 2001 fiscal year, leaving New Taiwan (NT) $42.5 billion

(US $1.3 billion) for Taiwan’s 52 national universities and institutions (MoE, 2002).

From 2001 to 2008, the MoE continued the reform of Taiwan’s higher education with

8 healthier UOF management and PHEI autonomy enhancement. The updated University

Act was passed in 2008 by Taiwan’s legislative body, providing all PHEIs with more flexibility and transparency in administering their personnel, finances, and accounting systems. In other words, Taiwan finally finished the legislation process necessary to support its PHEIs in their bid to become more competitive institutions.

Competition among Universities for Financial Resources

Recognizing the state of fundraising in higher education, many national and private university fundraisers have sought money from external organizations and alumni. This phenomenon may account for the second motivating factor—competition among universities for financial resources. This effect is similar to peer pressure, the same field or level competitors interactively influence each other for some specific purposes. That is, the more the government reduces capital resources for universities and colleges, the more universities must compete for existing financial resources. For example, after the MoE promulgated educational policy change in financial support to higher education, the privatized HEIs united to establish the Association of Private

Universities and Colleges (APUC) in 1994.

The major goal of APUC was to facilitate the development of private educational institutions in Taiwan. Approximately 70% of all high school seniors typically attend private HEIs (MoE, 2008); therefore, APUC has strongly influenced not only the majority of people, including college students and their parents, but also potential fundraising power because these private universities and colleges have cultivated a number of generous alumni. APUC has solicited alumni for donations to compete with

national universities and colleges, a condition illustrating the competition among

universities for fundraising, which in turn motivates the majority of officials at

universities and colleges to regard fundraising as an important priority. Competition

factor as a motivation of fundraising in higher education derives from the external

pressure to encourage all university personnel to do their best for fundraising.

To maintain fairness in taking care of the entire population of higher education

students, the MoE changed its policy of full support for PHEI students, reallocating some

national education budgets to private universities in order to encourage private colleges in

Taiwan to attain excellence in teaching and research (MoE, 2008; Mok & Chan, 2008). In

other words, at the time of this writing, PHEIs and private universities in Taiwan

competed for government financial resources on the basis of their excellence and

creativity in specific areas and competitive research. In addition some corporations have

directly supported many private universities in Taiwan so that they already have strong

financial foundations; moreover, some private Taiwanese universities have implemented

fundraising activities since they began operation. Thus, the private universities have two

such advantages over PHEIs in the competition for financial resources, increasing the

difficulty experienced at Taiwan’s PHEIs, especially for younger PHEIs and normal

schools.

Desire for Campus Autonomy and Flexibility

This factor motivating fundraising in higher education derives from the desire to achieve total autonomy and full flexibility, that is, financial independence. Many

universities and colleges pursue academic freedom, campus autonomy, and campus

10 resource allocation. All of them depend on financial independence, which emanates from effective fundraising efforts, process, and management. Taiwan’s government amended the University Act in 1994 to realize the spirit of campus autonomy and management by faculty.

In order for universities to achieve autonomy, the government introduced a fundraising system known as the Administration Fund for Public Universities and ran a pilot program in 1996 at five national universities. This system helped public universities to “be responsible for a portion of funding sources rather than completely relying on the central government for tuition collection and expenditures” (Y. Yu, 1997). In general, the most effective way to encourage the spirit of autonomy in universities is to finance independently (Y. Yu).

On one hand, the relationship between campus autonomy and funding is more complicated than it may appear because it involves a nation’s culture and university autonomy (Chiang, 2004). On the other hand, diversified funding is one of the most important concepts in fundraising in higher education; as a matter of fact, universities and higher education institutions around the world currently fulfill their missions through diversified funding (French, 2004). For a university a broad array of contributors means that it seeks out funds actively, winning public confidence (Chiang). A university that does so has already opened the door to seeking funds from the public. Autonomy in higher education is a matter of academic freedom, one of the key concepts typically appearing in the mission statement of the university or college. In order to fulfill its mission, the university or college seeks various funding opportunities, and these serve as

11 the best foundation for successful fundraising in higher education. In other words, the precondition of campus autonomy and management by faculty builds on effective fundraising organizations and diversified fundraising strategies.

The MoE has attempted to change the status of PHEIs to resemble that of an administrative legal body by encouraging university incorporation plans, merging similar

PHEIs, in order to give PHEIs autonomy (H. C. Lo & Tai, 2003; MoE, 2003; Mok &

Chan, 2008). The 2005 revision of the University Act was passed by Taiwan’s legislators in 2008. This Act is a regulatory base for all PHEIs to perform such an autonomic action for finance and governance.

Pursuit of Excellence

To compete or catch up with other institutions, universities use the pursuit of excellence to raise funds from external sources; a good fundraising system is, in turn, an important part of the pursuit of excellence because such a system will help universities and colleges fund their research and laboratories. Hence, the pursuit of excellence at

HEIs is usually accompanied by a strong fundraising component. In the 1990s the

Taiwanese people reached consensus about higher education, namely, pursuing excellence and promoting quality as basic criteria of educational reform (Y. Yu, 1997).

According to four reports of world university rankings from the Times Higher

Education Supplement in Britain (THES, 2005, 2006) and Shanghai Jiao Tong University

(SJTU) (2003, 2004) in China, earning the highest reputation among Taiwan universities,

National Taiwan University (NTU) ranked 102 in 2004 according to THES reports (2005) and between 153 and 201 in 2004 according to the SJTU evaluation (2005). In 2007 and

2008 NTU’s rankings in the THES were 102 and 124 respectively and in the SJTU, 172

and 164. Table 1.1 below summarizes the changes in NTU’s ranking from 2004 to 2008.

Table 1.1 National Taiwan University Ranked in the World From 2004 to 2008 Year THES Investigation SJTU Investigation 2004 102 Between 153 and 201 2005 183 183 2006 181 200 2007 102 172 2008 124 164 Note. The Websites of THES and SJTU: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk; http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htm

As a result of NTU’s dropping out of a place near the top 100 ranked universities

in the world in 2008, Taiwan’s government pushed Taiwan universities to invigorate academic competitiveness and renew reputations in the world. The MoE was to provide

NT$50 billion (US $1.5 billion) over a 5-year period commencing in 2007 to universities and colleges that produced high-quality research; only the top 10 universities were eligible for funding. The expected result of this funding was that at least one Taiwanese university would rank among the top 100 research universities in the world. In pursuit of this funding, all Taiwanese universities and colleges developed their best projects or research plans, demonstrating that the pursuit of excellence and fundraising are clearly related. In the pursuit of excellence, from 2000 to the present, most PHEIs have created research and development units in their organizational chart in order to handle all campus projects and research. The more intense the pursuit of excellence, the more funds must be raised. For instance, although NTU, the best university in Taiwan, had abundant government appropriations and donations from many Taiwanese entrepreneurs, university administrators have experienced budget gaps in their efforts to develop their

research projects and to become a world-class research university; therefore, PHEIs in

Taiwan ought to seek to raise more funds from individuals, corporations, foundations, and religious groups.

Decreasing Birth Rates and Future College Enrollment

The last factor motivating fundraising in higher education is the gradual annual

decrease in the student population as couples produce fewer children. Since 2003

Taiwanese scholars in sociology and economics at the National Taiwan University have

criticized the Taiwan government for misjudging Taiwan’s future educational

development and improperly distributing educational resources. The government failed to recognize that lower birth rates in Taiwan have had a major impact on many industries and fields, especially on Taiwan’s education, since 1997 (Hsueh, 2004; M. C. Lo, 2004); but Dr. C. S. Tu (2005), Taiwan’s minister of education, assured critics that Taiwan had seriously considered the impact of lower birth rates in the development of national education policies. Technology, however, has continued to grow, and the cost of studying at a university or college has continued to increase. When fewer students enroll in a university or college, they may be forced to pay higher tuitions to compensate for PHEIs’ increasing needs. In general, Taiwanese PHEIs’ financial resources come from funding, tuition incomes, and auxiliary campus businesses. The funding sources derive from a government or a society. The first and second financial resources constitute the majority of PHEIs’ budgets. Thus, when PHEIs in Taiwan maintain the old funding models without raising funds from a society, they will face a major gap in their annual budgets unless they increase tuition income or restructure campus expenses.

Table 1.2 Changes in Number of New Babies and Birth Rate in 1991–2008 Change in birth Year Number Number change Crude birth rate (‰) rate (%) 1992 321,632 -300 15.70 -0.93 1993 325,613 3981 15.53 1.23 1994 322,938 -2675 15.58 -0.82 1995 329,581 6643 15.31 2.05 1996 325,545 -4036 15.50 -1.22 1997 326,002 457 15.18 0.14 1998 271,450 -54552 15.07 -16.73 1999 283,661 -12211 12.43 -4.49 2000 305,312 21651 12.89 7.63 2001 260,354 -44958 13.76 -14.72 2002 247,530 -12824 11.65 -4.92 2003 227,070 -20460 11.02 -8.26 2004 216,419 -10651 10.06 -4.69 2005 205,854 -10565 9.56 -4.88 2006 204,459 -1395 9.06 -0.67 2007 204,414 -45 8.96 -0.02 2008 198,733 -5681 8.92 -2.78 Note. The Website of the Ministry of Interior Affairs of Taiwan: www.mia.gov.tw

The declining birth rate has significantly affected life in Taiwan. According to one investigation of the Taiwan national birth rate in 2006, prior to 1996 approximately

300,000 babies were born each year. From 1997 to the present, except in 2000, fewer and fewer babies were born each year in Taiwan. Table 1.2 below shows Taiwan’s birth rates between 1991 and 2008. After 2000 birth rates declined from 12.89‰ in 2000 to 8.92‰ in 2008. According to the Ministry of the Interior (MoI), Taiwan’s crude birth rate was

9‰ in 2006, lower than in the USA (14.2‰), Singapore (10.1‰), and South Korea

(9.2‰).

The impact of the lower birth rates has had the following effects: First, it has changed the entire social demographic structure of the country. Many elders and few children are seen on the streets (Hsu, 2006). Second, the student population of all schools has decreased annually, causing schools to adjust or change campus personnel structure to reduce costs (Hsueh, 2004; M. C. Lo, 2004; C. S. Tu, 2005).

Table 1.3 Number of Students Enrolled as Undergraduates in Comprehensive and Professional Universities and Colleges from 1998–2006 Year Bachelor’s degree % Change 1998 409,705 -- 1999 470,030 14.72 2000 564,059 20.00 2001 677,171 20.05 2002 770,915 13.84 2003 837,602 8.65 2004 894,528 6.79 2005 938,648 4.93 2006 966,591 2.97 2007 987,597 2.17 2008 1,005,993 1.86 Note. The Website of the Ministry of Education of Taiwan: www.moe.gov.tw

The revenue of schools has also decreased. When the younger generation reaches college age, PHEIs will face the same challenge that schools have in the area of personnel structure. In 2002, a vice minister of the MoE predicted that “by the academic year of

2003, there will be a decline in student enrollment due to the declining birthrate in our society” (MoE, 2002). Actually, Table 1.3 shows that college student enrollment increased by 20% from 1999 to 2000 and from 2000 to 2001, but after 2002 the increase

16 was smaller each year, falling from a 13.84% increase from 2001 to 2002 to a slim 1.86% increase from 2007 to 2008.

Table 1.3 shows that from 2002 to 2008, the increase numbers of students enrolled in comprehensive and professional universities and colleges in Taiwan gradually decreased year by year, especially from 2001 to 2002, a difference of over 5 percentage points (13.84% - 8.65%). This factor will apparently influence college and university student population to trend in decrease. For universities and colleges, the best solution for this challenge is to raise and accumulate funds to meet future needs. From this point forward, each university and college in Taiwan should take note of this change in student population. Furthermore, in facing this social trend, higher education administrators should plan effective enrollment strategies in advance to counteract the effects of the reduction in college student enrollment in the future and consider efficient fundraising strategies to compensate for the shortfall in student tuition income resulting from lower birth rates.

In summary, both external and internal forces motivate the development of the fundraising industry in higher education in contemporary Taiwan. External forces, including government policy change in education, the competition among universities for resources, and the change in student demography, have driven universities and colleges in

Taiwan to raise funds independently, locally and globally. Internal forces, including the financial independence necessary for campus autonomy and the pursuit of excellence, have pushed HE institutions to engage in fundraising activities and tasks. Once an understanding of the motivation behind fundraising in higher education is firmly in place,

17 an explanation of the behaviors typical in higher education fundraising in Taiwan is necessary.

Research Problem

By changing its higher education policies through the revision of the University

Act in 1996, Taiwan’s government established endowments for institutions of higher education and encouraged each national university to fundraise independently, highlighting the obvious importance of fundraising for Taiwanese national universities and colleges. Because of political, social, and economic factors, however, no fundraising professionals currently meet the needs of national universities and colleges in raising funds from the private sector and other resources (J. Y. H. Jou, 1992; H. M. Tung, 1997).

The need to train fundraising professionals to meet the requirements of public universities is clear; thus, an understanding of the current fundraising atmosphere and conditions in higher education in Taiwan is critical. The issue of the professional knowledge of fundraising is significant for Taiwan’s higher education because it will influence not only the perpetuation of national universities and colleges but also the effectiveness of fundraising and efficient allocation of financial resources. In addition, Taiwan’s legislators hope their PHEIs will gain financial independence and reduce the financial burdens imposed by education, making the problem of fundraising professionals in higher education an urgent matter not only for public universities or colleges but also for

Taiwan’s government.

As Taiwan’s diversity and development activities approach those of the West, the government has had to reallocate the educational budget to support other cultural and

welfare investments, necessitating a change from the original higher education financial

policy to a strategy of self-sufficiency. To assure the success of self-sufficiency, PHEI

fundraisers must study corporations and foundations in Taiwan that donated to PHEIs.

Some Taiwanese scholars (Hsieh, 2004; Ip, 2008; Lin, Yang, & Liou, 2009) have explored the behaviors of Taiwanese entrepreneurs who have donated to charity. In addition, Tsu (1912) pointed out that Taiwanese entrepreneurial philanthropists observe the traditional Chinese notion that individuals who earn business profits from a society ought to give back to that society. Some U. S. academic researchers (Carroll, 1999;

Craner, 2002; Davis, 1960; H. L. Johnson, 1971; Manne & Wallich, 1972) have also

recognized social responsibility as an important factor in U.S. entrepreneurs’ giving to

colleges and universities.

Purpose of the Study

This study had two purposes: the first purpose of this study was to understand the

patterns or processes of corporate and foundation giving to PHEIs in Taiwan. The

researcher accomplished this purpose by interviewing those who make decisions about

corporations’ and foundations’ funding distribution in order to determine fundraising

behavior at PHEIs in Taiwan. The second purpose was to assess the performance

outcomes of corporate and foundation giving to PHEIs and to evaluate the fundraising

performances of PHEIs. The Taiwanese government has steadily forced PHEIs to raise

their own funds since 1996. Ten years later, it has become necessary to assess the effects

and results of such a fundraising policy imposed upon PHEIs in Taiwan in order to

determine the efficiency and effectiveness of such a policy as well as to identify areas

requiring improvement.

Research Questions

This study explored characteristics and patterns of past donations made by

Taiwanese companies and foundations to PHEIs by pursuing the following five research questions:

1. What kinds of groups are most inclined to give funds to PHEIs? (Q1)

2. What incentives motivate these groups to give funds to PHEIs in Taiwan?(Q2)

3. How do these groups decide which PHEIs to fund? (Q3)

4. How has corporate and foundation giving to PHEIs changed since the 1996

government policy was instituted? (Q4)

5. What factors or variables influence the public higher education fundraising

network in Taiwan? (Q5)

Significance of the Study

Based on the two purposes, this study suggests two points about higher education fundraising in Taiwan. First, the outcomes of this study provide a valuable reference for both legislators and government officials in Taiwan to revise fundraising regulations. In other words, this research can not only assist administrators of higher education in raising funds from the private sectors but can also provide policymakers with advice on establishing regulations. Second, the study contributes to institutions of higher education by predicting outcomes of fundraising because the systematic analysis in this study deals with fundraising in higher education in the framework of combining educational and

20 economic perspectives to analyze fundraising in public universities and colleges. At the time of this writing, fundraising in Taiwan’s PHEIs was not generally viewed in terms of a systematic framework; instead, it has typically been viewed in terms of building and maintaining relationships and networks between donors and fundraisers.

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This literature review provides a historical perspective on the development of the

relationship between philanthropic fundraising and corporate and foundation giving in the

United States of America. Conceptualizing giving by organizations, including donation

incentives and behaviors at corporations as well as philanthropic behaviors at

foundations, the literature review also establishes the base upon which the researcher

built an investigation of corporate and foundation giving to public higher education

institutions (PHEIs) in Taiwan.

In this chapter the relationship between fundraising and donating has been

explored from the following three vantage points: the nature and history of fundraising,

corporate giving in the USA, and foundation giving in the USA. The three sections of this

literature review show the cooperation and reciprocity among PHEIs, businesses, and

philanthropic foundations as the PHEIs seek and obtain corporate and foundation support.

This literature review has the potential to change the firmly entrenched convention in Taiwan that shames university and college administrators who ask entrepreneurs or philanthropists to donate money. Often perceiving themselves as higher in social status than people in the business world, college administrators believe that requesting donations from corporations or foundations reduces their social status and disgraces their positions as presidents, vice presidents, or deans (Teng, 2002; Yun, 1995).

Furthermore, this literature review makes clear that (a) the fundraising of public universities and colleges is inevitable when a government cuts aid to PHEIs and

(b) businesses and philanthropic organizations must donate to PHEIs in order to reap

marketing benefits and tax savings. Higher education administrators can learn to

appreciate the importance of securing financial help from corporations and foundations

once they understand their purposes and incentives for giving.

This study was designed to help higher education administrators in Taiwan understand the cooperative relationship between PHEIs and business organizations

established through donations and to provide them with a solid, basic knowledge of

fundraising, which can be acquired by studying the systematic fundraising mechanism

developed in the USA for social philanthropy and higher education at the beginning of

the 20th century.

The logic and rationale behind the development of the five research questions

derived from the researcher’s desire to elucidate the conditions and causes that encourage

and inspire Taiwanese private organizations or groups to fund PHEIs. Based on the study

premise and the direction of the investigation, the researcher in collaboration with the

dissertation advisor developed five research questions. Specifically, research question 1

(Q1) explored groups most inclined to give funds to PHEIs to help readers understand the

phenomenon of fundraising at Taiwan’s public institutions of higher education. Donors’

reasons for giving and the processes they used that emerged from investigating research

questions 2 and 3 (Q2 & Q3) provide readers with a broad blueprint of Taiwanese

corporate and foundation giving to PHEIs. Taiwan’s PHEI fundraising movement grew

from governmental policy and related documents; therefore, the intent of the

investigation into research question 4 (Q4) was to provide readers with an understanding

23 of the role of such policy in this fundraising movement. The last research question (Q5) was designed to clarify the factors connecting demand, that is, PHEI fundraising, and supply, that is, organizational giving. The researcher, therefore, developed three different questionnaires for personnel at PHEIs, corporations, and foundations in Taiwan.

Information from the three surveys has knowledge regarding PHEI fundraising as well as concepts, incentives, strategies, decision making of corporate and foundation giving behaviors. The results of this investigation potentially help Taiwan’s PHEI administrators build an infrastructure for their fundraising tasks. The three surveys were based on the related studies discussed in the second, third, and fourth sections of chapter 2.

The Nature and History of Fundraising

The Nature of Fundraising

This section was designed to provide a definition of fundraising and to track its historical development in the United States and Taiwan as well as its application in higher education. It includes approaches to fundraising from ancient times to the present, taking into account the impact of forces such as the high-tech revolution and globalization. The researcher’s purpose was to provide the reader with a broad understanding of fundraising. At the same time special effort has been made to position the topic in a global context while focusing on international institutions of higher education.

As the Taiwanese government reduced its financial support for national universities, fundraising assumed greater importance among Taiwan’s PHEIs (M. Chang,

2000; Chen, 2002; Huang, 2003; Mok, 2002; Teng, 2002; Tsai, 1996; Yu, 1997). The

24 governmental trend toward the reduction of assistance has apparently dovetailed into growing public support for a competitive and self-sustaining model of education; moreover, such developments have been echoed elsewhere around the world, including the United States. Consequently, an understanding of the nature of fundraising as well as its increasing role in higher education is essential; thus university fundraising from both

American and global perspectives have been considered.

Philanthropic Perspectives on Fundraising

America’s tradition of philanthropy derived from the nation’s religious fervor.

Many American Protestant sects emphasized the practice of tithing, in which congregants donate one tenth of their income to religious organizations. Scholars have noted that tithing contributed to the overall improvement in quality of life and fueled the public impulse toward volunteerism that enhanced conditions in areas such as education, health, art, and culture (Bentley, Weber, & Hall-Russell, 1999). Perhaps the most enduring legacy of tithing, however, was the development of fundraising. Henry Rosso, cofounder of the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, stated, “Fundraising is the servant of philanthropy” (as cited in Tempel, 2003, p. 3). The survival of fundraising organizations depends largely on their capacity to draw contributions from the public; hence, if an organization fails to argue convincingly that it benefits the public, it has no “ethical right to ask for funds” (Tempel, p. 1). Philanthropic organizations or institutions must therefore examine their missions with an eye toward justifying public contributions. In the absence of a stated mission to benefit the larger community in some way, such organizations lack the ethical right to raise funds.

Taxation and Fundraising

As the American tradition of philanthropy developed, more groups and organizations established fundraising entities designed to benefit their missions and purposes. In response the National Society of Fund Raising Executives (NSFRE), currently known as the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP), was established in New York State, on June 21, 1960. One of the missions of the NSFRE was to help organizations in need of fundraising. In 1986 the NSFRE defined fundraising as “the seeking of gifts from various sources by 501(c)(3) organizations” (Kelly, 1998, p. 5).

Under the classification of the U. S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 501(c)(3) organizations are specifically philanthropic and public-interest organizations that can raise funds in and from the public and can be exempted from some taxation duties to the

U. S. government. According to this definition several conditions must be met to justify fundraising activities. First of all, only organizations classified by the U. S. IRS as

501(c)(3) have the right and authority to raise funds. This classification applies to organizations that perform “traditional government functions,” such as companies involved in building elementary or middle schools or improving water, road, and sewage systems. Such organizations are “exempt from federal income taxation under Section

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986” (Horn, 1996, p. 62).

Other organizations that fall under this classification fulfill “the broad purpose of charitable, religious, scientific, and literary or educational” work as well as the narrower purposes of “testing for public safety and prevention of cruelty to children or animals”

(Sargeant & Jay, 2004, p. 7). Examining definitions of fundraising from the perspective

26 of taxation, the researcher noted that local, state, and federal government agencies have encouraged Americans to form philanthropic groups and engage in philanthropic activities by reducing their tax burden. The government has, however, adopted a rather vague definition of 501(c)(3) organizations, which can be employed to justify a broad range of philanthropic fundraising (Horn, 1996).

Legal Perspectives on Fundraising

As philanthropic businesses expanded and diversified, local and state governments enacted regulations on fundraising in an effort to manage its practitioners and professionals. In legal terms “fund-raising is, in itself, a unique form of communication that ‘promotes’ and ‘sells’ the product (cause) and ‘asks for the order’ at the same time” (Hopkins, 1991, p. 27). One may infer from this description that fundraising synthesizes communicative knowledge, marketing concepts, and business transactions. Given that fundraising blends practical and theoretical knowledge, scholars and researchers from various fields of business, academia, and technology are involved in aspects of fundraising research and activity.

In the United States of America, the fundraising activities of some charitable and philanthropic organizations have appeared wasteful and abusive; thus, the American public has frequently expressed impatience with the large percentage of raised funds that are redirected toward administrative costs (Karst, 1960). Hence, legal regulations for fundraising often focus on the costs of fundraising activities. Such regulations seek to prevent raised funds from being used for private purposes and to ensure that they will be directed toward charity or public interests (Hopkins, 1991).

Public Relations Perspectives on Fundraising

Scholars who devote their professional lives to the study of fundraising activities and history often facilitate the larger mission of the academic institution to which they belong, yet many are also motivated by personal interests. Social scientist Kathleen

Kelly, for instance, researched the historical development of fundraising and applied this knowledge to public relations activities to benefit her personal political causes; furthermore, she combined theory and literature from the history of both public relations and fundraising to develop a critical–ethical theory of fundraising. Drawing on her public relations background, Kelly defined fundraising as “a management function that identifies, builds, and maintains relationships between charitable organizations and donors for the purpose of exchanging resources to attain philanthropic goals that benefit others as well as those involved in the exchange” (1998, p. 8). From the perspective of public relations, therefore, fundraising focuses on building a certain type of partnership or cooperation between donors and recipients. This constitutes a sharp departure from definitions of fundraising that concentrate on capital donations while ignoring relationships.

Fundraising can be examined from four general perspectives—philanthropy, taxation, the law, and public relations—each of which features a particular interpretation of fundraising; yet they share certain commonalities. All four perspectives, for instance, focus on giving and taking between or among persons or organizations. At the same time these perspectives define fundraising in markedly different ways. Depending on the vantage point, fundraising can be a tool of philanthropy, the ethical right of a specific

organization to secure certain tax exemptions, a lawful business transaction, or the means

to a relationship that is created and managed in a public relations context. Although these

four perspectives are not always mutually exclusive, they provide a way of understanding

the diverse vantage points from which Americans view fundraising activity.

The social behaviors and activities of fundraising are hardly limited to American

society; fundraising has also become pervasive in a global context. In other words

fundraising is one kind of activity in the worldwide financial flow from one national

community to another, especially for international natural disasters, such as the tsunami

in Asia in 2005 and the activities of world religions. Its market reaches around the world; therefore, the term “international fundraising” has been used to represent the importance of its internationalization. In addition public universities and colleges in Taiwan can use international fundraising activities to increase their global reputation and accountability because international fundraising provides opportunities to promote their market fame around the world. International channels for fundraising for PHEI in Taiwan have consequently become one of the important financial resources contributing to the development of global competition in the world. International perspectives on fundraising have been deeply influenced by the following developments: the rise of multiculturalism, the growing internationalization of nongovernment organizations (NGOs), and a dramatic shift in government roles and functions.

Multicultural Perspectives on Fundraising

If international fundraising professionals are to be effective, they must be aware of the various approaches to giving that prevail in different cultures (Wagner, 2005). In

29 other words multicultural factors (Wagner & Galindo, 2005) and multinational philanthropy (Hamilton, 2005) have exerted a profound influence upon giving behavior in the international context. It should not be surprising that culture would play such an integral role in approaches to fundraising, given that “culture strongly influences how one behaves and how one understands the behavior of others, and cultures vary in the behavior they find proper and acceptable” (Wilson, Hoppe, & Sayles, 1996, p. 1).

Taiwanese, for instance, prefer to donate money to religious associations (especially

Buddhist and Taoist temples) instead of educational institutions because Chinese culture encourages people to venerate heroes of the past and to seek divine favors through the act of giving. Conversely, Americans prefer to donate money to educational institutions or churches because they regard their material wealth as a product of education or divine generosity (Bentley et al, 1999).

Thus, from culture to culture people attach different meanings to the distribution of their personal wealth and income (Wagner, 2005), making it essential that international fundraising practitioners consider differences among cultures as critical analytic factors in their fundraising plans or research. They must also be aware of how donation recognition in various cultures influences global fundraising. In the United States and

Great Britain, for instance, donors not only wish to be recognized for their generosity, but they also expect it (Hamilton, 2005). Conversely, donors in France as well as many Asian countries take an opposite tack and deplore public recognition of their donations. These various attitudes toward the recognition of donations in the fundraising market reflect specific cultural perspectives on fame or recognition in a public context. Rendering value

judgments about these differences, however, must be avoided. Americans, for example,

believe that public recognition for gift-giving enhances their capacity to promote philanthropic causes (Hamilton); but Asian people’s recognition avoidance derives first, from traditional Taoist ideas in Chinese culture, which encourage people to protect themselves from unexpected assaults from the outside, to promote a better quality of life, and to extend life. Second, Asian criminals are infamous for threatening or kidnapping celebrities or their families. In other words, Asians feel less secure than Americans in their social milieu. As law enforcement deals more effectively with the Asian

underworld, Asians will feel more secure and perhaps more comfortable with and openly

proud of public recognition.

Growing Internationalization of Nongovernment Organizations

International fundraising has presented various challenges, given the need for

fundraisers to consider factors such as their country’s culture and its governmental

regulations on gift-giving. Ultimately, effective fundraising requires an intimate

knowledge of “governance, legal structures, and relationships” (Hamilton, 2005, p. 123).

In fact, even representatives of international humanitarian efforts, such as relief drives for

natural catastrophes, have faced many of the pitfalls and challenges encountered by more

typical international fundraisers. All must deal with multinational cultural factors, many

of which are outlined in Edward T. Hall’s (1973) classic work on international business

entitled The Silent Language, in which he listed four critical factors to consider:

relationships, communication, time, and space. He emphasized the need to establish and

maintain relationships in a global business context; the importance of appropriate modes

of communication; the need to be aware of cultural attitudes toward time, for example,

punctuality versus flexibility; and the need to be aware of attitudes toward space, for example, physical proximity versus distance. International fundraisers can effectively apply aspects of E. T. Hall’s model in their efforts to develop culturally appropriate strategies.

Government Reduction and NGO Increase in Roles and Functions in the Third Sector

Third sector is a shorthand term that designates representatives of not-for-profit organizations, excluding governmental organizations but including, for example, the Red

Cross and the United Way. The main financial resources of the third sector derive from fundraising activities, of course, including international fundraising. The increased importance of international fundraising owes much to a shift in governmental roles and functions throughout the world. These changes have resulted from a range of developments. First, governments have faced more complex domestic and foreign affairs because of unexpected international developments (Harland & Griffiths, 2001; Huque &

Zafarullah, 2006). Second, these changes have generated fierce debates over the distribution of national financial resources to deal with fresh challenges. In response many governments have implemented “structural adjustment policies” (Norton, 2003, p.

15), which have involved drastic cutbacks in funding for welfare and educational programs, in turn widening the gulf between rich and poor (Norton). As governments play smaller roles in tackling social problems, they have inspired less and less confidence and support among members of the general public (Wagner & Galindo, 2005).

Meanwhile, populations around the world have endured a series of devastating natural

catastrophes, such as hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic

eruptions, and floods—several of which have broken historical records in deaths,

damage, and money loss. These unprecedented disasters have strained and challenged

governmental agencies that appear ill-equipped to deal with natural disasters.

As the effectiveness of national governments declines (Estrada & Eardley, 2008;

Light, 2008; Wolf, 1997), more responsibility has fallen into the hands of international

NGOs. In the wake of recent disasters, NGOs have even assumed functions that were once the exclusive province of governments. The rapid growth of these organizations has invariably increased their reliance on fundraising, particularly as a means of coping with global crises and disasters. Thus, international fundraising is likely to play an increasingly critical role in the distribution and allocation of global resource alliances.

History of Fundraising

Understanding modern fundraising requires an exploration of its historical development. Fundraising theorist and practitioner Robert L. Payton (1990) wrote:

“Practice should indeed be informed by theory and history” (p. 177). His grasp of the importance of historical study in the context of his own discipline echoed numerous similar sentiments voiced over time. An ancient Chinese emperor, for instance, underscored the practical value of historical inquiry when he noted that history helps people to understand how and why a particular dynasty became powerful—or dissolved in weakness. Similarly, an old Western maxim stated, “If we do not know where we’ve been, how can we possibly know where we are going?” More recently, former NSFRE

President Patricia F. Lewis (1993) noted, “Our future will be surer if we understand our

past” (p. 9). When examining the history of fundraising, tracking development in three

basic areas is important: concepts and functions, methods, and strategies.

Ancient Fundraising

Influence of ancient religion. Fundraising activities have evolved from the general

concept of philanthropy, which in turn derived primarily from religious commitments and

activities. The earliest recorded formal fundraising events were associated with religious

faiths (Sargeant & Jay, 2004). In Judaism, for instance, a longstanding tradition of raising

funds for the religious community gave rise to some of the earliest approaches to

fundraising. Rabbi Akiba emphasized the importance of fundraising when he wrote, “It is

a greater value to cause another to give than to give yourself” (as cited in Sargeant & Jay,

p. 3). Fundraising methods in the Christian tradition, which took the form of weekly

Sunday collections, can be traced back to the so-called Dark Ages (476 C. E. to 1000 C.

E.).

Medieval times. During the medieval era (835 C. E. to 1487 C. E.), churches sought additional capital for purposes including social relief efforts. As a result they dispatched trained fundraisers to solicit gifts from the wealthy (Sargeant & Jay, 2004).

Such fundraising strategies suggested that religious organizations of the Middle Ages had already adopted a “team” approach to gift-gathering (Sargeant & Jay, p. 3), eschewing approaches that relied on the efforts of isolated individuals. During the same period religious organizations often staged elaborate fundraising campaigns designed to gather donations for the construction of massive cathedrals, necessitating the development of detailed analytical marketing plans in advance. (This was especially true in the 14th

century, when many of the most ambitious religious construction projects were

launched.) In addition to preparing detailed fundraising plans, Roman Catholic monks in

Austria also developed a fundraising handbook that outlined various strategies to raise

money (Sargeant & Jay).

Among the strategies developed during the Middle Ages was the practice of

raising funds through the mail (Sargeant & Jay, 2004). This approach reflected a shift

from intimate, face-to-face fundraising efforts to broader, relatively impersonal

arrangements that targeted entire regions or nations. In the 15th and 16th centuries,

religious groups promoted the sale of “indulgences” as a fundraising strategy (Sargeant &

Jay, p. 3). The indulgence was one kind of certificate purchased by individuals who

wanted remission from temporal punishments for sins committed by them or their

relatives or friends. Religious fundraisers contended that donors would have their

punishment waived and would spend less time in purgatory, a transitional state between

heaven and hell. This fundraising method, which blended the concept of religious

redemption with philanthropic values, proved highly effective in the short term.

The 17th century and afterwards. Seventeenth-century England saw the rise of an approach to philanthropy in which licenses were granted to ensure that those seeking funds were “the really impotent poor” (Sargeant & Jay, 2004, p. 4). Those deemed appropriate “official” recipients of charity included the elderly, the ill, and the disabled.

As a result of such rigid qualifications, a philanthropic atmosphere was slow to develop in England. In 1601 under Elizabeth I, the Charitable Uses Act was passed in an effort to mitigate the harshness of English society; and many charitable enterprises were initiated.

As late as the 19th century, however, the most common approach to fundraising, among

charitable and religious organizations, remained personal solicitation. These included

weekly church collections and personal letters to the wealthy, soliciting donations. In

1829 England’s nascent fundraisers sought to ensure more regular donations through the

introduction of annual subscriptions to support local institutions. This mode of

fundraising, however, provoked a negative backlash and was ultimately abandoned

(Sargeant & Jay).

Fundraising in the USA before 1900

The historical development of fundraising in the Western world has been

surveyed in brief below to provide some understanding of fundraising methods, such as

church collections, solicitations by mail, fundraising campaigns, fundraising handbooks

and guidelines, and in-person fundraising. In addition many universities, hospitals, and

other institutions also initiated fundraising activities (Fitzpatrick & Deller, 2000). Thus,

fundraising has played an important role in the development of various human enterprises

throughout the West, including religion, philanthropy, and education. Trends in Europe

were often reflected and refracted in an American setting, but the development of

fundraising activities in the United States is unique and merits separate treatment.

American conditions were distinct from those in the British Isles in the 18th

century. First, the U. S. government tended to take a positive view of philanthropic

enterprises and in the absence of a complex system of taxation (such as that which

prevailed in Britain) was able to provide more encouragement and assistance to such

groups (Sargeant & Jay, 2004). Meanwhile, the British government’s strict tax

regulations effectively undermined the growth of philanthropic organizations in the

British Isles. After 1776 in particular the United States witnessed an explosion of clinics,

schools, libraries, colleges, and hospitals, all of which depended to varying degrees on

fundraising activities. Fueling this trend was the new American government’s relaxation

of taxation regulations for nonprofit organizations, which were released of the

responsibility to pay property taxes; moreover, an openness to philanthropic activities

appeared to be a component of the emerging American character.

Fundraising in the USA after 1900

Based on these conditions, philanthropic enterprises in the United States enjoyed

a healthier climate for growth than those in other nations. Since the 1990s, however, the

U. S. fundraising industry has faced new challenges and developments. First, America

has witnessed the consolidation of more of its wealth in the hands of fewer people

(Cutlip, 1965, 1990; Kelly, 1991, 1998). This situation has ensured that wealthy donors

exert more influence in both national and international contexts.

The most obvious change that occurred in the U. S. fundraising industry after

1900 was a shift in the direction of more systematic approaches (Cutlip, 1965, 1990;

Kelly, 1991, 1998). Kathleen Kelly’s (1998) influential systematic analysis of the U. S.

fundraising industry divided the 20th century into four basic eras: the era of nonspecialists, the era of fundraising consultants, the era of transition, and the era of staff fundraisers. These categories largely reflect the extent to which the functions of fundraising became professionalized.

Era of nonspecialists. In the era of nonspecialists, spanning from 1900 to the immediate aftermath of World War I, fundraising tasks constituted merely a portion of the responsibilities of fundraising staff members. Hence, fundraising practitioners of this era were neither specialists nor professionals; they took an essentially part-time approach to fundraising activities (Kelly, 1998). During this era, however, legislation was introduced that would ultimately change the face of fundraising.

During the 1910s the U. S. government enacted two influential regulations: federal income tax law (1913) and the War Revenue Act (1917). The income tax law was designed to regulate philanthropic organizations, at the same time protecting areas traditionally exempt from federal income tax, including religious, charitable, and educational activities (Pruszewicz & Hulst, 2005). The War Revenue Act, which raised the tax rate in the aftermath of World War I (Pruszewicz & Hulst), exempted charitable organizations and offered deductions for charitable contributions (Kelly, 1998). These regulations suggest that the U. S. government moved purposefully to assist philanthropic organizations. Whatever the case, these regulations accelerated the development of fundraising throughout the country.

Among the well-known philanthropic organizations established during the era of nonspecialists were the Boy and Girl Scouts, the American Cancer Society, and the

National Urban League. During the same period two “giants” in the history of fundraising, Charles Sumner Ward and Lyman L. Pierce, secured donations for the establishment of the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA). Ward, in particular, is often hailed as the “father of modern fundraising” (Fitzpatrick & Deller, 2000).

Era of fundraising consultants. The era of fundraising consultants was ushered in primarily by conditions that resulted from World War I. Significantly, the U. S. government’s urgent need for funds to support the war effort compelled it to seek the assistance of well-known fundraisers, including Ward and Pierce. Such fundraisers quickly established themselves as consultants, and many created their own companies.

These new fundraising consultant firms trained their own professional experts; and naturally, many of these experts sought to promote their own versions of “best practices.”

Charles Ward, for example, incorporated his fundraising consultant firm; and his trained experts were known collectively as the “Y school” of commercial fund raising (Kelly,

1998). John Jones established his own “school,” which was informed by business systems and values (Kelly, 1998). Thus, the era was largely characterized by sharp competition for fund resources among proponents of two distinct fundraising systems—consulting and business systems.

It is important to remember, however, that these fundraising consultant firms rarely solicited or received gifts. For the most part, they simply provided consultant services. Such firms disseminated their professional fundraising knowledge and skills among solicitors; and sometimes, they even went so far as to use professional relationships to help clients solicit donations. These fundraising consultant firms were limited to what is often described as “external” fundraising, and in the increasingly competitive world of fundraising, it would eventually prove necessary to shift to

“internal” approaches to fundraising (Bintzer, 1981).

Era of transition. In the era of transition, which spanned from World War II to

1964, two major trends emerged in the fundraising industry. First, institutions of higher

education emphasized fundraising activities and even hired professional staffs to manage

them. These professional staffs, which became associated with fundraising organizations

such as the American College Public Relations Association (ACPRA) soon developed

into what became known as Alumni Funds, which systematically targeted graduates of

the institutions in donation drives. In addition many universities and colleges divided

their fundraising efforts among campus staffs charged with internal fundraising tasks,

such as annual giving and “operating-need” gifts, and consultant companies charged with

external fundraising efforts, such as campaigns and “capital-need” gifts. Second and

perhaps more importantly, a gradual shift from external fundraising consultant groups to

internal fundraising staff management took place at universities and colleges.

Numerous national fundraising associations were founded, and others altered their missions in significant ways. In 1955 the American Association of Fund-Raising Council

(AAFRC) moved from a relatively obscure trade association “to the leading national

voice for the fund-raising occupation,” when it published an influential annual report that outlined fundraising outcomes (Kelly, 1998, p. 150). AAFRC’s annual report, entitled

Giving USA (2001), remains the most authoritative compilation of statistical information on U. S. philanthropy. Later, the organization released Giving USA Update, an equally

influential periodical publication that inspired many fundraising associations to join

professional organizations, including the aforementioned NSFRE, the Association of

Healthcare Philanthropy (AHP), the Council of Advancement and Support of Education

(CASE), and the Independent Sector (IS) (Kelly, 1991).

Era of staff fundraisers. The era of staff fundraisers, extending from 1965 to the present, saw the internalization of fundraising functions among HEIs and nonprofit organizations. Hospitals and public universities placed responsibility for fundraising activities firmly in the hands of professional staffs, and the scale of fundraising campaigns became much larger than in the past (Fitzpatrick & Deller, 2000; Kelly, 1998).

This period also saw a dramatic increase in expected fundraising targets, and actual outcomes were consistent with or exceeded these expectations. Consequently, confidence grew at these institutions because of their ability to elicit donations from the public without the assistance of external fundraising consultants.

The establishment of the Fund Raising School at Indiana University in 1974 reflected the extent to which HEIs (and the larger society) had come to recognize the importance of fundraising (Kelly, 1991). Even before 1974, however, momentous developments in the political sphere contributed to the further development of the fundraising industry. Changes in federal taxation regulations, for instance, exerted a powerful impact on the field. These included the Tax Reform Act of 1969, which required all 501(c)(1) organizations to file annual financial statements with the IRS. Prior to 1969 the finances and accounting of all 501(c)(1) organizations were free of federal control and supervision. This regulation, however, forced them to reorganize their financial systems in accordance with taxation requirements (Kelly, 1998).

A growing number of voices within the academic and governmental sectors asked

for answers to questions about the theoretical foundations of philanthropy and

fundraising. More intellectuals connected fundraising with their institution’s governance

and function in society. In this climate Yale University received financial support to

research “the philanthropic basis and the long-term societal aspects of the third sector”

(P. D. Hall, 1990, p. 250). Thus, academic devotion at Yale University not only contributed to philanthropy and values in the United States but also led the way for fundraising guidance in the third sector. In other words, Yale University built the base of philanthropy and fundraising activities in society at large and gained the approval of

American academia.

Fundraising in Higher Education in the USA

The United States leads the world in the areas of both higher education and

fundraising; therefore, the researcher has focused on the United States instead of other

parts of the world in this study. The purpose of this section was to track the evolution of

fundraising at American universities and colleges in the 20th century in order to analyze

historically the needs and demands of fundraising at American HEIs and to connect these

needs and demands with the donations of enterprises and foundations. The researcher has

highlighted the 20th century because this period was characterized by sweeping

conceptual and technological changes in the area of college and university fundraising.

Before 1900 fundraising activities among HEIs adhered to traditional patterns and

practices, including personal transactions and solicitations.

Before 1900: Informal, Personalized Fundraising

In colonial days the overwhelming majority of American HEIs were still in an

embryonic state; therefore, few of them enjoyed the stable financial resources needed to

support their administrative operations. Even prestigious institutions such as Harvard

College (now Harvard University) were compelled to stage four lotteries for the

construction of buildings and facilities between the 1770s and 1810s (Cutlip, 1965).

Harvard College was, in fact, the first American institution of higher education whose

representatives engaged in overseas fundraising efforts. In 1641 three clergymen

affiliated with Harvard led a fundraising campaign in England, where they emphasized

the potential role of the institution in educating “the heathen Indian” (Cutlip, 1965, p. 3).

Historians often cite this campaign as the first fundraising mission on the part of an

American HEI. In addition the clergymen produced what is believed to be the first brochure for higher education fundraising (Cutlip, 1965; Worth, 2002b).

Many fundraising activities for HEIs were informed by religious zeal and

advanced such projects as the Christianization of North America (Worth, 2002b). At the

same time institutions such as Harvard were already pursuing strategies that anticipated

those of contemporary fundraising efforts. The college, for instance, actively sought

donations from alumni. This trend became more pronounced among 19th-century

universities that established alumni organizations in which members were encouraged to

support to their alma mater. In 1821 Williams College established the first alumni

association to “perpetuate memories and [the] intellectual interests” (Worth, 2002b) of

the school. Two years later Brown University organized the first alumni fund in the

history of U. S. higher education. From thence administrators regarded alumni as “living

endowments” for the university or college (Worth, 2002b).

By 1900 universities still engaged in informal fundraising methods, such as

persuasive conversations and letters, had nevertheless seized on the concept of rating

prospective donors. As early as the 1820s, Philadelphia fundraiser Mathew Carey

introduced the practice of rated prospect lists; and legendary fundraiser Benjamin

Franklin further developed this concept, adding the component of skillful moral

persuasion (Fitzpatrick & Deller, 2000). After 1900 higher education fundraising

campaigns were increasingly well-organized, strategic, and professional.

After WWII: Rise of Professional Leadership

The period between the onset of the 20th century and World War II proved to be time of transition for higher education fundraising. Two back-to-back world wars ensured that all national resources would center on war needs. Thus, the U. S. fundraising industry saw the rise of professional leaders such as Ward, Jones, and their contemporaries. Ward, in particular, developed the fundraising methods and practices that provided a professional foundation for fundraising in higher education. His chief contribution to higher education fundraising was to transform fundraising into a business with its own system and strategy, a departure from the amateur methods of earlier decades (Worth, 2002b).

Several trends affected higher education fundraising after World War II. First, the field became increasingly professionalized (Cutlip, 1990; Kelly, 1991). This development, in turn, led to a shift in the role of development officers within institutions

44 of higher education. Throughout much of the 1950s, the American Alumni Council

(AAC) and the American College Public Relations Association (ACPRA) held fragmented views on institutional advancement. In 1958, following a joint meeting at

West Virginia’s Greenbrier resort, a unified concept of institutional advancement emerged; it was outlined in the Greenbrier Report, which provided the groundwork for the merging of both associations into the Council for Advancement and Support of

Education (CASE) in 1974. The new organization expanded its scope to include sponsorship of conferences, publications, and online services for educational advancement. CASE also sponsors the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) and similar organizations that provide systematic training for educational fundraisers.

Second, formal development programs grew rapidly in the United States and abroad during the postwar era (Sargeant & Jay, 2004). Prior to the 1970s only private

HEIs sought private financial support. After the 1970s, however, the mission and role of public colleges and universities expanded in a way that contributed to a dramatic increase in expenditures. Consequently, the budgets of public institutions could no longer be covered adequately by state appropriations—a situation that prompted these institutions, quite naturally, to seek out private support. The gradual shift in the direction of private support among public colleges and universities is suggested by the following figures on public institutions: $356 million in private funds, 1971–1972; $44 billion in private funds, 1988–1989; and $99 billion in private funds, 1998–1999. Significantly, increased competition for private funding among institutions of higher education is not simply an

American phenomenon. By the turn of the 21st century, CASE counted 27 member

45 nations, an indication that HEIs based in those countries compete aggressively for private funds.

Third, a dramatic increase in the scale of fundraising campaign goals has contributed to a narrowing of the fundraising pyramid. As early as the 1960s, Scott M.

Cutlip (1965), author of Fund Raising in the United States: Its Role in America’s

Philanthropy, observed that fundraising campaigns among HEIs had increased rapidly over time. Cutlip (1965) illustrated his point with a historical analysis of Harvard

University’s fundraising records. Beyond the expanding scale of university or college fundraising campaigns, the climate has been altered by an increased reliance on “mega donations” by billionaires. A survey conducted by CASE in 1999 revealed that as much as 80% of donations raised in campaigns originated from the top 10% of donors, and 57% of total gifts originated from 1% of donors.

Fundraising in Taiwan

To date scant literature deals specifically with Taiwan’s fundraising history. The researcher has, therefore, relied on media reports on fundraising efforts in the areas of religion, culture, education, politics, and natural disaster. Before examining fundraising activities in these spheres, however, information on the Taiwanese government’s position on fundraising is necessary. Hence, this segment opens with an analysis of government regulations concerning fundraising activities.

Legislation of Fundraising in Taiwan

The Nationalist government lost the civil war in mainland China in 1949 and moved to the island of Taiwan to form the Taiwanese government. Its earliest regulations

46 pertaining to fundraising can be traced to 1943, when the government was based in mainland China. Four years after the relocation of the Nationalist government to Taiwan in 1949, these regulations were slightly revised. Overall, the government sought to place tight controls on fundraising activities through administrative regulations, according to which fundraising activities were limited to three broad areas: (a) national defense, (b) philanthropy and public interests, and (c) culture and education (MOI, Regulations,

2005). Those involved in fundraising activities were required to seek the government’s permission in advance and were also required to report to the government after their campaigns were completed. Fundraisers thus found themselves embroiled in time- consuming bureaucratic processes, and these cumbersome regulations likely constrained severely the activities of philanthropic organizations. From the 1950s to the present, the

Taiwanese government consistently maintained conventional ideas and customs that discouraged fundraising in general; however, more recently it changed its policies associated with fundraising regulations.

Revised fundraising regulations were put into effect on May 17, 2006. Generally speaking, the former fundraising regulations had been informed by the Nationalist government’s earlier imposition of martial law. When martial law was lifted in 1986, regulations concerning fundraising were not initially viewed as a priority. This changed on September 21, 1999, when a devastating earthquake severely damaged several

Taiwanese cities, including the capital of Taipei. A flood of overseas donations generated by international fundraising efforts evidently prompted the government to rethink its outmoded regulations on philanthropic activities. Because of these conditions, in 2006

the Taiwanese government revised many articles and concepts of the original fundraising

regulations of the 1949 Act in order to fit the needs and the reality of Taiwan’s current

society.

Fundraising in Religion

Taiwanese people are inclined to make generous donations to Buddhist and Taoist

temples as well as other religious associations. Their impulse to do so stems from a

traditional belief that such gift-giving will benefit them in the afterlife, a concept that informs Taiwan’s Buddhist and Taoist traditions. According to the Ministry of the

Interior’s Taiwan Yearbook 2005, the island has 18,274 Buddhist temples and 4,038

Taoist temples with 7,600,000 and 5,486,000 adherents, respectively. In other words, more than 13 million Taiwanese, half of the island’s population, provide financial support to about 22,000 temples without government patronage.

The most heavily endowed religious foundation in Taiwan is the Tzu-Chi

Foundation (originally known as the Buddhist Compassion Relief Fund). The founder, a

Buddhist nun, built the organization exclusively through fundraising efforts that began in

1975. At the time of this writing, the Tzu-Chi Foundation’s funds were estimated at US

$375,000,000, and the foundation has expanded its philanthropic activities to include global efforts. Among other projects, the foundation operates schools (ranging from kindergartens to universities), hospitals, cultural institutions, and disaster relief organizations. The Tzu-Chi Foundation raised substantial funds in the aftermath of

Taiwan’s devastating 1999 earthquake, the more recent Southeast Asian tsunami in

December 2004, and Hurricane Katrina in the USA in 2005. Taiwanese religious

donations generally take one of two basic forms: an initial offering, usually placed in a

donation box; and an additional donation in response to having a prayer “answered.”

Taiwanese people tend to visit temples on significant holidays, such as the lunar

New Year, or on occasions of personal significance, such as participation in a competitive national examination. Burning incense, they pray to favored gods for successful outcomes or good luck. When such expectations are realized, the supplicants generally provide an additional donation, or “feedback donation,” to the temple. Temples that develop a reputation for facilitating the realization of prayers quickly become

“populous temples,” believed by Taiwanese pilgrims to serve as the venue of especially powerful gods; such temples draw enormous crowds as well as substantial donations.

Fundraising in Politics

When the Ching Dynasty took control of Taipei in 1879, the governor set out to build a city wall for security reasons. The Ching central government, however, refused to support the project, placing the governor and the imperial government at an impasse. As the governor remained committed to the project, he decided to raise funds from local

Taipei entrepreneurs in order to complete construction. Ultimately, he raised the equivalent of US $6 million for the construction funds. One hundred years later Taiwan’s entrepreneurs remain the main source of financial support for civic projects and political parties.

Shui-bian Chen, Taiwan’s president at the time of this writing, has received

substantial funds from entrepreneur supporters in Taiwan and overseas. Chen belongs to

the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which was once banned because of its

opposition to the Kuomintang (or Nationalist Party). Taiwan’s political climate

underwent significant changes in the 1980s, however, which allowed for the

legitimization of previously outlawed opposition parties and paved the way for the

revocation of martial law. Unlike the Kuomintang, which secured full or partial

ownership of many enterprises during the years it maintained a political monopoly on the

island, the DPP possessed few resources or connections in the business community; hence, the DPP was relegated to domestic and international fundraising.

In this unique political climate Taiwanese political fundraising grew

exponentially, and official regulations were not introduced until March 18, 2004.

Taiwan’s Political Donation Law forbade local politicians from soliciting, or accepting,

political donations from China, Hong Kong, or Macau. Those in violation of the law were

vulnerable to “maximum prison sentences of five years” (J. Su & Huang, 2004). The

Political Donation Law has proved to be a double-edged sword, however. On one hand it

has placed much-needed regulations on political fundraising; on the other it has further

entrenched the powerful Kuomintang organization, which enjoys disproportionate access

to financial resources compared to other groups.

Fundraising in Education

Hardly limited to Taiwan’s political sector, fundraising has long played a

significant role in the sphere of education. Before the 20th century one of the most

prevalent forms of elementary education was the shu yuan, a private school that depended

heavily on the financial support of the surrounding community. An especially dramatic

example of a successful fundraising effort came in 1857, when an obscure scholar based

50 in central Taiwan approached local landowners and financiers with a plan to establish a shu yuan in his relatively isolated community. This scholar was able to raise the equivalent of US $270,000 while securing a donation of two acres of land. Western influences on education in Taiwan trace back to the late 19th century, and the earliest

Western educational institution there was Oxford College, now Taipei’s Aletheia

University. Founded in 1872, by Rev. Dr. George Leslie Mackay, a Canadian missionary, the school benefited from donations raised primarily in Mackay’s native home of Oxford

County (Aletheia University, 2006). Following several transfers of ownership, the institution was taken over by a Taiwanese Christian organization.

Historically, as early as 1956, administrators of Taiwan higher education institutions engaged in several but uncontinued fundraising activities (Tung, 1997). Since

1990 the Taiwan government has permitted universities and colleges to raise their own funds; therefore, many public universities or colleges established foundations, such as academic development foundations or cultural and educational foundations in order to raise funds.

Fundraising in Times of Disaster

The largest Taiwanese fundraising campaign to date came in response to the devastating earthquake that struck the island on September 21, 1999—an event popularly known as “921.” The earthquake caused 2,347 deaths, leaving thousands injured and homeless (Y. H. Kao & Kuan, 2001). Following the disaster Taiwan’s government was compelled to show more openness toward a burgeoning public interest, and members of the Taiwanese public pooled their resources to launch impressive relief and rescue

51 efforts. Given the unprecedented international response to the disaster, questions arose as to whether or not Taiwan’s government could responsibly allocate relief funds; so an independent committee of private citizens appointed Dr. Yuan T. Lee, a prominent chemist and 1986 Nobel laureate, to supervise the distribution of funds and materials. By

September 31, 2005, the Taiwanese government, specifically the Ministry of Interior

(MOI), had received no less than US $200 million in donations (MOI, City and County,

2005).

Taiwan witnessed the establishment of more than 230 organizations and foundations dedicated to 921 fundraising efforts. These private fundraising entities raised the equivalent of US $562 million and directed the bulk of these funds toward assistance to survivors and reconstruction efforts (MOI, Private Groups, 2005).

The historical development of Taiwanese fundraising, despite its unique cultural and political contexts, has reflected a philanthropic spirit similar to that found in the U. S. tradition of fundraising; moreover, the rise of high technology, combined with the powerful forces of globalization, has accelerated cross-fertilization among fundraising enterprises around the world. In addition more fundraising organizations have looked beyond their “own backyard” to tackle projects and challenges elsewhere. The international forces that have helped transform fundraising efforts in other sectors of

Taiwanese society have also affected fundraising in the area of higher education.

Current Fundraising Strategies and Methods in Higher Education in Taiwan

At the beginning of the 1990s, the Taiwan government cooperated with academic researchers, such as Dr. Jou (1992), a dean at a private university, to investigate Taiwan

universities and colleges to understand their situations and fundraising activities. By

using statistical analyses in his research report to the ministry of education, he compared

higher education fundraising conditions and circumstances in the United States, Japan,

and Taiwan, including tax regulations and bylaws, fundraising systems and organizations,

and fundraising outcomes.

Jou’s (1992) research findings were as follows: The majority of the 24 Taiwan

universities and colleges in his survey typically had temporary fundraising units, not

formal and permanent ones, in their organizational charts in charge of raising funds.

Committees that focused on specific theme activities, such as campus building

construction or university anniversary celebrations, conducted the fundraising. The target

population comprised entrepreneurs who had succeeded without family support.

He also found two influential factors in raising funds: (a) whether or not the top

university or college administrators accepted the concept of fundraising and (b) whether

or not their financial resources were abundant. The former shaped Taiwan’s higher

education administrators’ attitudes toward raising funds, which ranged from a closed and

conservative traditional system to state appropriation to an open and competitive market

system to professional and accessible networking. The latter explained why some

organizations with unstable and less rich funds developed their own fundraising projects

and plans earlier than some with stable and rich funds. He also found that the primary

reason to cease raising funds from society is based on practical needs, not long-term operation plans or goals. In his research, he discovered that approximately three fourths of all public universities (N=25, n=18) in Taiwan had no fundraising experiences.

Moreover, in the 1990s several writers of theses and dissertations investigated educational fundraising activities in Taiwan. Tung (1997) researched fundraising activities at Taiwan universities, observing people’s attitudes toward donations to educational institutions and concluding that some wealthy entrepreneurs preferred to use their financial resources to establish a university or college instead of donating to existing universities or colleges. She found that many Taiwanese people see donation to private colleges as donating to one or several individuals. In fact, not many public colleges or universities receive donations from individual Taiwanese people. Her conclusions regarding the low-performance of fundraising at Taiwan universities derived from the following reasons. First, the fund resources in Taiwan have been limited. For example, in

1997, the National Taiwan University (NTU), the most prestigious university in Taiwan, raised funds from individuals to cover only 1% of the same-year fiscal budget. She disclosed the fact that many NTU alumni were discouraged from donating to their alma mater because their philanthropic donations to schools caused Taiwan’s tax administrators to suspect that these donors had dishonestly reported their incomes. They feared that their taxes would increase as a result of their donations, that they would literally be punished for giving to public schools or philanthropic organizations. Tung also found that many of Taiwan’s universities pursued funds from businesses, but few corporations agreed to donate, limiting the fund sources from Taiwan businesses and increasing competition for them.

Second, public universities and colleges did not have complete authority to control or operate their funds because Taiwan’s government let public universities and

colleges gradually raise funds individually and operate these funds to pay their personnel

expenditures, including faculty wages, pensions, welfare, and insurance. In addition,

time-consuming bureaucratic and hierarchical processes hindered public universities and

colleges from efficiently and flexibly using funds raised by them.

Third, Taiwan tax laws in place at the time of this writing seemed not to

encourage people and corporations to donate to higher education because Taiwan has

higher inheritance exemptions and lower inheritance tax rates than the USA. These two

factors have encouraged Taiwanese people to bequeath their wealth to their children or

relatives. Fourth, the performance of Taiwan universities falls below people’s

expectations, causing some corporations in Taiwan to give to famous American

universities, such as the University of California at Berkeley instead of Taiwan colleges.

The Taiwanese government established endowment funds for national universities

in 1996, when it also required national universities to raise funds equaling up to 20% of

their total annual budgets. This shift in governmental policy on higher education has

compelled Taiwan’s universities and colleges to “jump in with both feet” into the era of

fundraising, pursuing endowment funds and targeting alumni of high-technology programs, enterprise diagnosis clinic, overseas fundraising, and venture capital funds.

Endowment Funds. Prior to 1996 Taiwan’s national universities and colleges adhered to civil service budgetary regulations when distributing educational funds derived from government appropriations (Teng, 2002). These outmoded regulations compelled higher education administrators to submit to annual evaluations by the

Ministry of Education (MoE), which rated their budgetary performance and efficiency. In

cases where institutions of higher education failed to meet their budgetary goals, the MoE

either halted or sharply reduced government appropriations. Faced with this bureaucratic

system of funding, some college and university administrators deliberately distorted their

budgetary performance with sudden purchases of facilities or equipment. These

unnecessary purchases were designed to help the institutions meet their budgetary goals

and ensure the same level of government appropriations in the next fiscal year. Hence,

the old regulations did not contribute consistently to the achievement of educational goals

set by either individual institutions of higher education or the MoE (Teng). In addition

Taiwanese colleges and universities were compelled each year to turn over surplus funds

for joint projects with private enterprises. The altered function of endowment funds,

however, contributed to dramatic changes in the civil service budgetary rules that enabled

universities and colleges to exert more control over the use of their funds (Teng).

Targeting Alumni of High-Technology Programs. Soaring profits in the high- technology industry have led practitioners of higher education fundraising to focus on high-tech organizations. Many national universities and colleges that host related

technology programs, departments, or centers have placed more emphasis on their high-

tech alumni (as well as the companies where their alumni work) when seeking to

cultivate donors. From 2000 to 2002, for instance, Tsing Hua University, the most

prestigious school of engineering and high technology in Taiwan, raised massive

donations from three high-tech companies: Macronix International Co., Ltd.; the Taiwan

Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Education and Culture Foundation; and Delta

Electronics, Inc. These funds were used to construct two major campus facilities that

were named after the donor companies.

Enterprise Diagnosis Clinic. National Chiao Tung University (NCTU) introduced a way to integrate fundraising and sales on a single website in 2001. This unique website featured a special service for alumni—an online enterprise diagnosis clinic that invites

NCTU alumni to consult with well-known alumni in order to solve problems in the areas

of business and management.

Overseas Fundraising. Important steps toward overseas fundraising were taken recently by Fu Jen University, a well-known private university. In 2001 the university established the USA-based Fu Jen University Fund, registered with the U. S. federal government. The fund was designed to pave the way for overseas fundraising, especially in the United States. By the end of 2001, the fund raised US $67,000 (over NT$2 million) and also amassed a large bequest in the USA.

Venture Capital Funds. At the time of this writing, venture capital funds raised

money for several national universities and colleges in Taiwan. Alumni of NCTU in

Taiwan and the United States have established four venture capital funds, which total

about NT$3 billion and return more than NT$10 million to the school each year.

Related Higher Education Fundraising Rsearch in Taiwan and USA

Size of Fundraising Staffs

In Taiwan, the size of full- or part-time fundraising staffs for PHEIs perhaps is

one of important determinants for successful fundraising. The number or size of

fundraising staffs or development officers is usually an influential factor in the

effectiveness of the fundraising performance and success of these staffs or officers

(Gatewood, 1994; Hunter, 1987; Jenkins, 1997; Miller, 1997). In the United States,

public or private universities or colleges have affiliated foundations in charge of their

own fundraising work and performance. Some U. S. scholars, such as Hunter and Miller,

found that the fundraising successes of college foundations are associated with the size of

fundraising staffs. Their common conclusion is that successful university or college

fundraising operations usually have at least one full-time director or other high-level

administrator designated to manage the college’s fund-raising program. The relationship

between this factor and the total amount of funds raised was confirmed in Grohar’s

(1989) research about a church-related college’s fundraising.

Age of the Institution

The influence of the age of the PHEI in the success of its fundraising has not been absolutely determined, at least not in the United States. Some researchers have shown a positive association between the age of the institution and its fundraising performance, such as Keener, Ryan, and Smith (1991), who suggested that the age of the organization was a positive and important factor in its image. Miller (1997) studied 2-year community

colleges in the USA and concluded that the age factor was not significant in the success

of community college fundraising. Gilmore’s (1996) research revealed that some newer

HEIs had better fundraising records with large companies. But in Taiwan, no researchers

to date have explored this issue; hence this study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of

Taiwan’s PHEI fundraising with regard to the age of the institution.

Governmental Policy and Fundraising Performance of Institutions

Facing the challenge of budget cuts that interfere with their academic development and ability to compete, PHEIs in many countries in Asia and Europe have implemented U. S. fundraising strategies in order to assure that they are academically competitive. For example, in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Labi (2009) found that several European countries had experienced serious financial deficits in state higher education budgets; and they had to change their traditional perspectives toward national higher education in order to see them as free-market organisms as they are viewed in fundraising styles and models used in American higher education. Furthermore, higher education administrators in several fast-developing Asian nations like Singapore and

Taiwan have also applied American fundraising methods as a result of government intervention in order to reach the standard of famous colleges or universities around the world (Overland, 2008). The NSH was therefore designed to investigate the fundraising staffs of Taiwan’s PHEIs to understand the extent to which the Taiwan government’s

1996 PHEI self-sufficiency policy affected the development and governance of its higher education.

Conclusion

Overall Taiwan’s current fundraising climate resembles the era of nonspecialists in the United States. Most Taiwanese national universities and colleges have teams or committees charged with fundraising tasks, and members of such bodies rarely possess much in the way of professional training; consequently, these fundraisers tend to rely almost exclusively on their personal networks to tap potential donors. The most urgent

59 task for Taiwan’s institutions of higher education in the context of fundraising is perhaps to professionalize their staffs and introduce systematic methodologies, including the establishment of alumni funds. In addition Taiwanese higher education fundraisers must take into consideration domestic cultural factors when seeking to implement fundraising marketing strategies that evolved in an American milieu. Foremost among these differences are Taiwanese attitudes toward donor recognition. Most Taiwanese donors prefer that their gifts remain anonymous because they do not wish to draw attention to themselves in a society that values privacy and conservatism. This widespread attitude toward philanthropy is rooted in traditional Chinese thought, which asserts the superiority of “philanthropy without others’ awareness.”

Along with the foregoing explanation of what fundraising is and the current situation in PHEI fundraising in Taiwan, an examination of philanthropic behaviors in business is necessary because corporate donations will eventually become the primary funding resource for PHEIs when government appropriations end or are reduced. Top administrators of universities and colleges must, therefore, understand corporate philanthropic incentives and donation motivation.

Studies for Corporate Giving in the United States of America and Taiwan

Introduction

A provocative and important issue in fields like corporate governance and educational fundraising, corporate giving provides vital financial resources needed to support educational and philanthropic institutions. To explore corporate contributions, social scientists have devoted much time and energy to observing and analyzing the

60 processes of those who make decisions about corporate giving. Basically, corporate contributions benefit donors in five areas: marketing, tax savings, social currency, public relations, and social responsibility (Galaskiewicz, 1989; Kelly, 1998). The following summarizes the research conclusions of scholars studying these five areas of benefit as they apply to corporations in the United States of America.

Marketing Incentives

Encompassing economics, management, psychology, relationships or networking, and other subjects, corporate giving or contribution entails complicated enterprise behaviors in the realm of the social sciences. The relationship between corporate giving and marketing shows the domain of corporate philanthropy converging in the field of economics, inviting an exploration of such relationship. Historically, economists have regarded corporate donations as irrational behavior (Schwartz, 1968) because corporate philanthropy could not suddenly produce and obtain instant, explicit, and evaluated feedback and benefits; however, the insights and instincts involved in corporate giving are actually worth investigating and studying (Schwartz). Schwartz’s research into corporate donations, incomes, and a net cost ratio of donation (prices) revealed that the

“donations [of firms] are positively related to income and negatively related to price” (p.

495). He also pointed out that corporate philanthropy is similar to one kind of economic behavior aimed at allocating resources impossibly consistent with profit maximization.

This phenomenon can explain why many cases of corporate giving could not be evaluated or interpreted from the perspective of enterprise profits. Although profit motivation for corporate giving cannot delineate the motivation in all corporate-giving

61 cases, some scholars have developed attitudes and viewpoints opposing Schwartz’s. For instance, Fry, Keim, and Meiners (1982) argued that their research outcomes regarding profit considerations have played a very important role in the marketing incentive of corporate giving. They stated that before 1954 American corporate giving had to match or follow “stockholders’ interests under the business judgment rule” (p. 95), but in 1954

American jurists approved more freedom for American corporations to distribute contributions among charitable recipients (Fry et al.).

The first published research on corporate giving was done by O. Johnson in 1966.

Exploring the relationship between corporate giving and company size and between corporate giving and industry structure, O. Johnson found that “very competitive and very noncompetitive industries had lower contribution ratios than in rival industries” (p.

495), that is, several but not many competitors in an industry. Hence, different industries have various modes of corporate giving.

Other scholars have viewed corporate philanthropy as a cooperative phenomenon similar to advertising. Burt (1983) concluded that companies have a market incentive, so their donations resemble the kind of advertising investments that institutionalize their relationship with people as their prospective customers or strengthen their existing customers’ loyalty. He emphasized that this market incentive underlying corporate giving is stronger than other incentives, such as tax incentives.

Burt’s (1983) conclusion is akin to marketing strategists’ general opinions about corporate contributions. Galaskiewicz (1989) reported that many marketing professionals

“view corporate contributions as a way” (p. 247) to obtain more expected and unexpected

customers in the future. Kelly (1998), a well-known fundraising scholar, pointed out that corporate contributions are positively related to a company’s consumers and to advertising expenditures (p. 592). The literature clearly indicates that the marketing incentive is a critical one for corporate giving; this phenomenon was confirmed by academic research and studies conducted in the 1960s and the 1980s.

Tax Incentives

The tax incentive creates an instant, specific, and appraisable advantage for corporate giving. Companies can calculate and compare in advance the advantages and disadvantages of their contribution decisions based mainly on the taxation regulations in their respective countries. Countries operate under various taxation systems and provisions of proclamation in order to protect their own authority and benefits. For example, the U. S. government does not allow American corporations to donate to

recipients abroad for the purpose of tax exemptions except corporations that have

incorporated with such overseas agents or those who do so only in the name of

individuals to donate to foreign recipients (Andrews, 1950).

The most attractive tax incentive for corporate giving is that up to 5% of corporate

net income could be tax deductible if the contributions are made to charitable or public-

interest agencies. Some scholars, including Kelly (1998) and Galaskiewicz (1989),

researched a similar topic concerning the relation between corporate giving and tax rates

through IRS data, finding that “tax rates have a positive relationship with corporate

giving” (Kelly, 1998, p. 592). This finding revealed that corporate giving increases when

63 the tax rates increase because “the cost of corporations’ contribution declines” (Kelly,

1998, p. 592).

Although the U. S. government provides tax deduction as an incentive for corporations, the real effects of corporate giving are very limited (Galaskiewicz, 1989).

According to a study by Hodgkinson, Weitzman, Toppe, and Noga (1992), collectively and on average, only 2% of corporations’ taxable income constituted corporate giving although the U. S. government permits them to “deduct 10% and to carry forward excess contributions up to five years” (Kelly, 1998, p. 592). Historically, the highest rate of corporate giving ever recorded was 2.35% in 1986 (Bailey, 1994) because corporate executives knew the U. S. government had reduced the income tax rate from 46% to 34% in 1987 (Kelly, 1998). The literature review shows that the tax incentive for corporate giving depends on governmental tax policies and the fluctuation of tax rates, especially the income tax rate; therefore, if governments plan to transfer their financial burdens from social philanthropic organizations to corporations and industrial organizations, in effect, a tax-rate cut must be considered.

Social Currency Incentives

Social currency incentives for corporate giving result from the social expectations and norms in society at large, such as peer pressure and corporate subcultures, and produces corporate directors or contribution decision makers who follow or obey such social expectations or norms (Galaskiewicz, 1989). Galaskiewicz interpreted the social currency incentive as a soliciting media to encourage or inspire corporate executives to enjoy the “status benefits” of corporate giving (Kelly, 1998, p. 593). His research also

64 indicated that the regional atmosphere of corporate giving seems to be popularized when these companies’ managers and directors join local philanthropic organizations and engage in activities as members of philanthropic networks.

Corporate philanthropy is a perpetually controversial topic in corporate law. Law professionals and experts in the field hold varying views just as stockholders and managers have diverse opinions about the status of corporate philanthropy (Brudney &

Ferrell, 2002). Knauer (1994), a corporate law specialist, asserted that corporate giving should be viewed as social currency based on the nature of the corporation and the social construction of charity. Although the legislation status of corporate giving is in turmoil, in effect, the social currency incentive for corporate giving actually exists in society as shown by considerable academic research; furthermore, this incentive also plays an important role in helping philanthropists and fundraisers achieve their fundraising goals in and from private enterprise.

Public Relations Incentives

The fourth incentive for corporate giving according to Galaskiewicz’s (1989) classification of incentives for corporate giving is public relations. This incentive actually causes invisible but sensible effects that cultivate good interactive relationships with the community and society. Kelly (1998) interpreted the ultimate benefit of cultivating public relations through corporate giving; that is, “corporations have autonomy from external formal control” (p. 593). Two considerations yield good public relations with people, communities, and society. First, politically, good relations with residents help corporations pave the way for more successful business in the future because

65 corporations building good will among residents in their communities create good impressions and positive images (Galaskiewicz), resulting in easy recognition by people who desire to do business with the corporations. Second, economically, the long-term effect of maintaining good relations through corporate giving is to reduce the risk of future lawsuits regarding business disputes or arguments, environmental issues, or other unexpected events brought by members of the community, groups, or specific people

(Kelly, 1998). A good example to explain the importance of building good relations with communities is that many big “corporations donate a large proportion of their contributions budget in communities where their headquarters are located” (White &

Bartolomeo, 1982, p. 41). Not only do American domestic corporations emphasize cementing good relations through corporate giving, but foreign corporations also stress its importance. For example, some Japanese companies in the United States, such as

Toyota, Nissan, and Hitachi, have established good relations with local communities by investing in philanthropy; they have gained people’s trust and won government and community leaders’ assistance in many forms (Burlingame, 1994).

Social Responsibility Incentives

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an important incentive for corporate giving, broadly discussed by academics, businesses, and governments. The researcher has identified two aspects of CSR in the literature review: the evolution of CSR and perspectives from which governmental policies spring. The rationale for identifying these two features is to connect corporate giving to the fundraising field with CSR.

Before the 1950s scholars focused on business executives’ functions and

responsibilities, and they had already pointed out some features of CSR in their research

(Barnard, 1938; Clark, 1939; Kreps, 1940). In 1953 Howard R. Bowen, the father of

CSR, initially raised the issue of corporate social responsibility; his definition of CSR and

his argument about the functions of CSR also gained the support of the majority of

corporate executives in the USA (Carroll, 1999). He argued that CSR “is no panacea,”

but it “must guide business in the future” (Carroll, 1999, p. 270); furthermore, his

theories of CSR influenced other CSR research and played a major role in establishing it

as an important factor in academics and business (Carroll, 1999). Also of importance is

Keith Davis’ concept of the “Iron Law of Responsibility” which conveyed the notion that

the “social responsibility of businessmen needs to be commensurate with their social

power” (1960, p. 71).

In Business in Contemporary Society: Framework and Issues, H. L. Johnson

(1971) analyzed the incentive component of CSR and presented four views on it, explaining and analyzing why corporations have CSR and how it impacts them and their executives. Manne and Wallich (1972) demonstrated that CSR involves three basic elements: objectives, decisions regarding the pursuit of objectives, and the financing of the pursuit of objectives. The serial interaction of CSR begins with societal expectations or the objectives of the corporations (Carroll, 1999).

Fitch (1976) defined CSR as one kind of corporate ability needed to solve social problems (Carroll, 1999). In other words corporations must encounter social problems that, more or less, influence their business activities. In order to have successful and

67 smooth business dealings, corporations should possess the ability to deal with social problems.

Abbott and Monsen (1979) developed a measurement and assessment scale for

CSR. The measurement of a firm’s CSR primarily provides valuable analytical instruments and information, including those needed not only for corporate executives to understand both the advantages and disadvantages of their enterprise culture’s association with society and to know how to improve corporate relations with communities and society at large but also for academic scholars to understand each corporation’s cultural status and situation as diagnosed by statistics. At the same time Thomas Zenisek (1979) conceptualized CSR with “the two components of a business ethic and societal expectations of the private economic sector” (as cited in Carroll, 1999, p. 352). Zenisek used the concept of “fit” to make corporate directors or executives align their business ethic with societal expectations (as cited in Carroll, 1999, p. 359).

In the 1980s research in CSR shifted from definitions to themes (Carroll, 1999).

For example, Jones (1980) regarded CSR as a process of corporate operations, not a set of outcomes. Jones’ proposal of a process-type of CSR encouraged firms to “engage in a process of CSR decision making” (Carroll, 1999, p. 285). Tuzzolino and Armandi (1981) adapted Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs to a needs-hierarchy framework in order to provide a better mechanism with which to assess CSR (Carroll, 1999). Drucker (1984) asserted that CSR is not simply the compatibility of profitability and responsibility but could actually transform into business opportunities. This concept implies that CSR contains profit-making chances if corporations know the conversion methods.

Carroll (1983) elaborated a four-part definition of CSR. In his theory, he viewed

CSR as a combination of economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic components. Later

he altered his CSR theory, making it a three-dimension model, including principles, processes, and policies. Thus, Carroll’s four-part three-dimensional CSR model became the mainstream theoretic structure of CSR in the 1990s. According to Carroll’s theory, the evolution and process of CSR are policy-driven as discussed below.

In the 1970s the Committee for Economic Development (CED) conceived the modern concept of CSR in U. S. society because the CED had determined that the relationship between corporations and society was changing from simple to broader CSR and from plain to complex quality of American life. The CED contracted with the

Opinion Research Corporation in 1970 to track the nature of these changes; the research culminated in a revised definition of CSR that included production functions and responsibilities, social values and priorities, and improvement of the social environment in a statement by the research and policy committee of the CED (1971) entitled Social

Responsibilities of Business Corporations (p. 15). Thus, U. S. governmental policies have directly influenced the atmosphere of CSR; moreover, the U. S. State Department has always advocated the importance of CSR and continues to maintain and consolidate good relationships between corporations and the U. S. government because the support and cooperation of corporations are essential to the operation of existing governmental policies (Craner, 2002).

Motivation for Corporate Giving

According to Brittingham and Pezzullo (1990) PHEI fundraising staffs should have full knowledge of their fund donors’ behaviors and motivation, including companies and foundations, because such understanding is critical to their practice of fundraising missions and assignments. These two researchers examined organizational donation behaviors and motivations through both economic and noneconomic lenses. In terms of economic factors, their study concluded that organizational donations are motivated by four kinds of economic and social issues: They are “a function of income, the frequency of messages for the public good, provision of tax incentives, and disincentives to a free ride among nondonors” (Brittingham & Pezzullo, p. 33). Regarding noneconomic factors, they pointed out seven factors motivating donation: building a friendship, reaching personal goals, decreasing feelings of guilt, “maximizing profits, repaying advantages, investing in activities that have indirect utility to the donor, and receiving the tangible perquisites of private giving” (Brittingham & Pezzullo, p. 34).

According to Jacks’ (1987) investigation only 10% of philanthropic giving in the

USA was motivated by simple altruistic charity (as cited in Brittingham & Pezzullo,

1990). Drachman (1983) claimed that most corporate donations resulted from a combination of plural economic and noneconomic factors (as cited in Brittingham &

Pezzullo). Webb (1994) determined that possible reasons for U. S. corporate giving included “profit-maximization, altruism of the owners, social responsibility or duty, and managerial utility” (p. 404). White and Bartolomeo (1982) investigated Fortune 1300 corporations regarding their corporate giving attitudes and goals, finding that CEOs’

70 goals for corporate giving were based on fulfilling corporate self-interest, helping the needy and improving their community, improving their company’s public image, increasing corporate revenue, and recruiting quality employees. According to Giving in

Numbers (2008), an analysis of recent trends in corporate philanthropy sponsored by the

Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (CECP), corporate giving in 2007 in the

United States was motivated by three considerations: “charitable, community investment, and commercial” (p. 33). This report indicated that from 2005 to 2007 commercial motivation decreased from 11% to 9%, but community investment considerations increased from 42% to 52%. These numbers indicate growing corporate American concern with relationships with the local community, so corporate leaders allowed a trade off, resulting in the decrease of commercial motivation for the sake of investing in their communities.

Purposes of Corporate Giving

Diverse purposes usually underlie corporate giving (Carroll, 1999). One such purpose is to create or reach corporate citizenship, a concept that flourished during the

1990s in the USA during Bill Clinton’s presidency, when American companies were encouraged to improve employee relations. Robert Payton (1988), however, argued that corporate citizenship should include “voluntary giving to public purposes,” emphasizing that corporate philanthropic giving should benefit not only corporate life but also the lives of others (as cited in Carroll, 1999). In other words, corporate giving is characterized by the sense of giving back to the community or society in close proximity to these corporations. The CEOs of several large corporations, such as Coca-Cola, Chick-

Fil-A, and Kellogg, have supported this philanthropic impulse by engaging in specific beneficial activities in their communities. For instance, the late CEO of Coca-Cola,

Roberto C. Goizueta, “argued that companies should . . . give back to their community”

(as cited in Carroll, 1999, p. 5) for four specific reasons: (a) business includes the

community, (b) corporate human resources derive from the community, (c) community

residents watch how the company treats its employees, and (d) company involvement is

needed in the life of the community, such as in churches and social halls (as cited in

Carroll, 1999, p. 6). Good corporate citizenship involves four purposes: to improve

employee relations, to improve customer relations, to improve business performance, and

to improve a company’s marketing efforts (Walker Information, 2003).

Strategies for Corporate Giving

Prior to the 1990s U. S. corporate giving was simply considered as one kind of

“benign corporate philanthropy” (Hemphill, 1999, p. 57) or “manifestation of corporate social responsibility” (Logsdon, Reiner & Burke, 1990, p. 93); however, since then this kind of corporate philanthropy has taken the form of a strategic business plan at U. S. corporations. This change commercialized corporate philanthropy through marketing.

Logsdon et al. conducted research to determine the typology of strategic corporate contributions in the San Francisco Bay Area, identifying three types of corporate strategic philanthropy—for market development, employee development, and external stakeholder management. According to David P. Baron, who was a Stanford University professor, corporate business strategies for philanthropy or giving to higher education were divided into two categories: market strategy and nonmarket strategy (as cited in Hemphill, 1999,

p. 57); therefore, corporate giving to higher education or PHEIs is regarded as a

charitable investment by American entrepreneurs. On one hand, the market strategy for

corporate philanthropy combines or links philanthropic donations with corporate product

or service marketing, which have a positive effect on current or prospective customers in

society (Hemphill). On the other hand, the nonmarket strategy for corporate philanthropy

involves the public, shareholders, government, the media, and public institutions as they

interact with corporations (Baron, 1995, as cited in Hemphill).

Corporate contribution to philanthropy or higher education is also an influential

factor in connecting corporate business goals and objectives with donation behavior

(Mullen, 1997). Achieving a company’s objective and meeting fund recipients’ needs

constitute the dual purposes of strategic philanthropy for corporate giving (Marx, 1999).

Some social science scholars, such as Porter and Kramer (2002), who were professors at

Harvard University at the time of this writing, cited a variety of reasons to explain why U.

S. corporate philanthropy became strategy-driven. They concluded that American societal expectations of corporate giving and corporate organizational management led by shareholders compel their corporate executive units, such as CEOs, to give. Porter and

Kramer also concluded that contemporary corporate philanthropy in the United States has moved in two directions: developing public relations and promoting corporate image and brand. They asserted that corporate giving to a university is perhaps the most cost efficient way to enhance corporate competitive capacity and quality, more efficient than corporate in-house enhancement.

Decision-Making Process in Corporate Giving

The first economist to raise the issue of the decision-making process for corporate

giving was Milton Friedman (1970), who held that corporate shareholders or employees

are the best decision makers (as cited in Porter & Kramer, 2002). However, Porter and

Kramer pointed out that current corporate philanthropy is contradictory to Friedman’s

assumption for corporate contributions. They said instead that a corporation at large

should be involved in the decision-making process surrounding of corporate giving

because the company’s contribution is a strategic decision, involving “competitive

context—the quality of the business environment in the location or location where the

company operates” (Porter & Kramer, p. 9). In some cases corporate unanimity and the

inceptive idea of corporate contribution derives from a chief executive’s affinity for a

cause (Hemphill, 1999). Hence, the decision-making process for corporate giving for

charitable and competitive considerations has been somewhat controversial in the USA.

Philanthropic Corporate Donations to Higher Education in Taiwan

To date no research comparing corporate and foundation donations to PHEIs in

Taiwan is available, but some international researchers and scholars have studied the

importance of the support of social organizations to the development and enhancement of

PHEIs. They have explored corporate and foundation donation behaviors in their homelands (Campbell, Moore, & Metzger, 2002; File & Prince, 1998; Hsieh, 2004; Ip,

2008; Lin et al., 2009; V. F. Wu, 2000) or compared their donation behavior with that of several other countries (Baron, 1994; Brady, Noble, Utter, & Smith, 2002; Campbell et al.; Deguchi, 1994; Muller & Sepehri, 1988).

Related literature about corporate philanthropy has demonstrated the diversity and

specialization of corporate philanthropy and donation behaviors in different nations,

races, and cultures. Hsieh (2004) explored the motives of Taiwan’s corporations to

donate and not to donate to society through case study focusing on customer-oriented

marketing strategy. His findings can help PHEI fundraisers understand the dos and dont’s

necessary when dealing with Taiwan’s corporations as they plan fundraising strategies

for their campuses.

P.K. Ip (2008) studied corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Taiwan using several surveys. He defined CSR in Taiwan and described how its companies fulfill and disclose it; in addition his research connected Taiwan’s CSR with Taiwanese traditional

customs and culture: “Confucian familism” and “crony capitalism” (p. 173). His work

has helped members of academia understand Taiwan’s corporate donations. Personnel at

PHEIs in Taiwan used his findings to approach corporate leaders in order to acquire

funding from them.

Lin et al. (2009) empirically analyzed Taiwan’s CSR to discover how the

financial performance of corporations influences their economic rewards. Their study

confirmed that CSR directly influences corporate revenues and profits in the long term.

Their literature review indicates that in the USA CSR is not only a factor in corporate

investment but also in corporate donation. Their findings suggest that PHEI fundraisers in

Taiwan should invest in the long-term cultivation of the CSR of Taiwan’s corporations in

order to implant the notion of CSR in Taiwan’s business ethos. V. F. Wu (2000)

conducted an empirical study of Taiwan’s university–industry (UI) research cooperation,

recognizing it as a national objective aimed at linking Taiwan’s government, HEIs, and corporations to “enhance the level of technological sophistication” (V. F. Wu, p. 14) in

order to compete globally; therefore, PHEI fundraisers should facilitate interaction

between the university and industry to develop academic and research strengths on their

campuses.

Campbell et al. (2002) studied corporate philanthropy in the UK, their homeland,

by investigating financial ratios, such as profit before tax and after interest (PBT), total

sales, the ratio of return on sales, charitable donations (CHT), financial performance

(PBT/total sales), and generosity (CHT/PBT). Their findings showed which groups in the

UK had given more generously to UK society. Their study provided Taiwan’s PHEI

fundraisers with a particular research method to understand the level of generosity among

Taiwan’s corporations by analyzing national financial data. File and Prince (1998)

explored U. S. corporate philanthropy by way of marketing concepts—cause-related

marketing in order to clarify U. S. corporate motivation to support U. S. arts

development. According to their study, the application of marketing concepts is a feasible

and plausible path to understand the motivation behind corporate contribution.

The review has covered three nations’ corporate philanthropy or donation behavior—Taiwan, the UK, and the USA—from the perspectives of marketing, finance,

CSR, and UI research cooperation, to explore corporate philanthropic motivations and behaviors. The following concentrates on comparing one country with the other in terms

of their corporate philanthropic motivations.

Muller and Sepehri (1988) compared corporate support of higher education in

Canada and the United States from 1971 to 1985. Using data generated by the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS) on 36 U. S. industrial groups, they discovered a positive

correlation between U. S. corporate contribution and business advertising budgets (p.

164). Their study used the rate of giving, a percentage of corporate total worldwide

pretax net income as contributions, to examine U. S. and Canadian corporate

philanthropic supports to their HEIs. With thorough IRS data on the financial activities of

companies in the USA and Canada, PHEI fundraising staffs can compare these two

nations’ corporate support to higher education. These national data and information

regarding corporate financial positions are essential to the government and society of

Taiwan for developing healthy and comprehensive fundraising systems for PHEIs. Baron

(1994) raised several issues about emerging philanthropies in East and Southeast Asia.

Aggregating philanthropic data from several East Asian countries like Taiwan,

Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan, he identified four salient characteristics of the East

Asian philanthropy in the 1990s: diversity, annual corporate giving, innovative

fundraising for philanthropy, and public-funded endowment managed by a semiprivate board of trustees.

Each fundraising case has two components. The foregoing material has addressed the fund-giving side. The next part covers the fund-recipient side: the PHEI. Brady et al.

(2002) defined charitable hybrids, such as museums and universities, and explored their methods and theories of giving and receiving. Articulated through statistical correlation analyses, the connections between giving and receiving linked service-related hybrids

77 that provide service quality and satisfaction with charitable giving entities’ perceived need and organizational identification. They combined the services–philanthropic giving model and the philanthropic effects model to enhance understanding of the factors driving the fundraising ability of charitable hybrid organizations. The quality and performance of a hybrid organization like a PHEI have a direct impact on this organization’s fundraising circumstances and results (Brady et al.). Their study clarified the determinants of donor behavior in the hybrid organizations, such as value exchanges between them and donors, donors’ satisfaction with them, and donors’ organizational identification, perceived need, and philanthropic predisposition.

Comparing the corporate philanthropy of Japan and the United States, Deguchi

(1994) found that Japanese corporate philanthropy permits corporate foundations to have a “high degree of formal independence” (p. 7) unlike in the United States. In Taiwan, community foundations and individual foundations are in the same situation with a high degree of formal independence; however, corporate foundations usually depend on the sponsorship and support of their parent corporations.

The foregoing information has shown that corporate philanthropy or donation behaviors follow diverse paths; in other words, corporate philanthropic behaviors in different countries have diverse determinants or factors. In addition, corporate philanthropy derives from different considerations, angles, or methodologies resulting in diverse plural and complex reasons for making donations to hybrid organizations. In fact, this study required additional literature regarding corporate donations to PHEIs to support and extend this research. This study explored reasons that Taiwanese corporations and

foundations donate to PHEIs in order to connect corporations or foundations and PHEI.

According to Liu (2006) and Rooney, Mesch, Chin, & Steinberg (2005), studies about

corporate or foundation donations to higher education are very scarce. Liu and Rooney et

al. explored private giving to HEIs, not corporate and foundation giving, to higher

education.

Along with the scarcity of the literature, some researchers have noticed that

gender plays a significant role in educational donations (Andreoni, Brown, & Rischall,

2003; Rooney et al., 2005). Females exhibit a greater inclination to donate to education

institutions than males (Andreoni et al., 2003). Besides, individual preferences also play

an important role in donating to educational institutions (Burgoyne, Young, & Walker,

2005; Rooney et al.). In Taiwan, small to middle-sized companies constitute the majority of business and industrial organizations. As such, bosses’ preferences or interests or those of their spouses usually determined corporate educational donations from small to mid- sized companies.

Conclusion

Corporate-giving incentives control corporate contribution decision making so that the five incentives described above should be considered within the contexts and operations of corporations. The incentives may even become part of the fabric of the visionary mission or goals of corporate culture. Higher education administrators must understand the history, background, and development of these incentives and recognize the profitability of large corporations in order to know how to raise funds from these companies efficiently and effectively. By the same token, these corporations must be

79 willing to make contributions to higher education institutions. This is win–win social behavior, and it begins with understanding and developing an effective strategy that promotes communication on both sides.

Not only is corporate giving critical, but philanthropic foundations also play an important role in social activities, including their donations to PHEIs, no matter whether in the USA or Taiwan. Hence, the next section of the literature review shifts focus to the development and functions of U. S. foundations in order to inform education administrators of their roles and functions—including the advancement of society—so that they can recognize the usefulness and importance of getting along with foundations.

Studies for Foundation Giving in the United States of America

Introduction

In the United States, foundations play a variety of crucial roles (Langemann,

1999); they contribute private wealth in the public interest (Andrews, 1950). In the realm of philanthropy, they bear social responsibility for helping to care for the weak; with regard to societal advancement, they facilitate change to improve a society or even the world, working to eliminate problems like hunger and poverty or to better the environment; in education they facilitate the development of ideas and programs in HEIs

(Langemann). In fact, foundation giving is such a vital funding source that understanding

U. S. foundations and their giving incentives has become essential for university and college administrators.

Definition of a Foundation

Defining the foundation is complicated by the diverse definitions held by researchers and members of various professions. Dwight MacDonald (1956), former director of the Ford Foundation, even humorously described a foundation as “a large body of money completely surrounded by people who want some” (as cited in Freeman,

1981, p. 2). Focusing on American perspectives on the foundation, this researcher has, however, grounded his definition in a survey of U. S. foundations, viewing the American foundation from the perspective of higher education administrators and providing a bridge between the philanthropic foundation and the HEI.

The historical development of foundations in the United States reaches back to the

19th century, and members of various professional fields, including philanthropy, law, legislation, and higher education, have offered myriad definitions of the foundation.

Justice Gray (1867) defined a foundation as an organization that provides gifts by applying existing laws to bring people’s minds under the influence of education or religion—or otherwise lessen the burdens of government (cited in Andrews, 1950, p. 11).

As early as the 1930s, an interpretation and connection had already emerged to explain the relation between foundations and HEIs in the USA. Ernest Hollis (1938) provided a definition for a foundation from the perspective of the higher education administrator. In his opinion a philanthropic foundation is “a fund, legally chartered—a part of whose subventions are to outside agencies working for the direct promotion of higher education within the United States” (p. 8). Hence according to this definition, a foundation has an obligation to education, especially higher education: A foundation

81 must help the nation improve the quality of its education, raising it to a level above that of other nations around the world.

Andrews (1950), a philanthropic scholar, defined a foundation as “a nongovernmental, nonprofit organization,” owning principal funds and delegating its own trustees or directors to manage it; its purpose is to serve “social, educational, charitable, religious or other activities [of] the common welfares” to fulfill the needs of American society (p. 11). According to this definition the existence, meaning, and philanthropic value of foundations in the USA lie in satisfying or meeting societal needs by efficiently distributing their contributions or principal funds to individuals or agencies requiring financial assistance.

Later members of the legal profession and legislators in the United States have attempted to define the foundation because the U. S. government controls philanthropic foundations through laws and tax regulations. For example, in the Tax Reform Act of

1969, the U. S. Congress described a private foundation as a charitable organization with relatively few resources to obtain its contributions, which are then distributed through grants or operating programs (Parrish, 1973). The differences between private foundations and philanthropic organizations are twofold. The foundation has a single source or a few sources of contributions, and its major mission is contributing to society in general instead of expending contributions on its own purposes (Parrish). With a clear configuration of U. S. foundations from the preceding review of definitions in the literature, the reader can gain a deeper understanding of American foundations from a survey of their history and development.

History of U. S. Foundations

One of the first Americans who conceptualized the foundation was Benjamin

Franklin (Hollis, 1938), who gave 1,000 pounds sterling each as city trusts to Boston and

Philadelphia to help young married people develop useful skills and good character by providing them loans from the principal of his donations. These two cities managed

Franklin’s donations and accumulated additional capital and individually established the

Franklin Union in Boston in 1904 and the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia in 1908.

The first foundation in the USA was built in 1829 by James Smithson. Its purpose was to increase and diffuse knowledge among people (Hollis, 1938). At the beginning of the 20th century, U. S. foundations developed and prospered; they were numerous and diverse. During the first 3 decades foundations increased in number to 12,

22, and 41 respectively (Hollis). In 1955, the American Foundation Information Service confirmed 4,162 foundations in the USA (as cited in Hollis). In 1993, approximately

37,600 U.S. foundations were in operation (Kelly, 1998; Renz, Lawrence, & Treiber,

1995).

Foundations moved in different directions for grant distribution and development blueprints as times changed. In American Foundations: An Investigative History Dowie

(2001) traced three waves of development of U. S. foundations in the 20th century.

The first wave occurred between 1900 and 1945, when the majority of U. S. foundations emphasized the creation of knowledge and policy studies. At that time the most popular policies under discussion were affordable housing, working conditions, and race relations (Dowie, 2001); therefore, foundations designated more grant money and

contributions to issues. By contrast many European nations, such as Britain and France,

used national or governmental resources to study these social issues, but U. S.

foundations used private resources to fund related research on such policy studies.

In the first wave, founders of U. S. foundations were convinced that advancing

American society was possible only through sharing knowledge across generations. They

believed as well in new learning that creates progress, expands wealth, and advances

civilization and social welfare. Because of the emphasis on the advancement of

knowledge, philanthropy in the first wave was known as “scientific philanthropy”

(Dowie, 2001, p. 5).

During the second wave, 1945 through 1960, U. S. foundation administrators

became mediators in the formulation of public policy because philanthropists realized

that the best return on the philanthropic dollar was investing in formulations of public

policy (Dowie, 2001, p. 5). Foundations mediated between elite scholars and American

governmental policymakers. Some concepts currently taken for granted, such as equal

opportunity, civil rights, and environmental protection, took shape during the second wave of foundation support (Dowie). During this period foundations balanced the basic natural sciences, such as physics and medicine, and the applied social sciences, such as interdisciplinary science and governmental policies.

During the third wave, which spanned from 1970 through the time of this writing,

American foundation officers, known as philanthrocrats, made issues of social justice and social movements their priority for grant distribution. When political and ideological differences among conservative and liberal foundations became philanthropic issues,

84 philanthropic foundations split. Thus, conservative foundations spent more money to improve social-movement philanthropy, the results of which are still pending according to researchers (Dowie, 2001). Building on the definition and history of U. S. foundations, the following section details the types of American philanthropic foundations, their features, functions, and operations.

Four Types of U. S. Foundations

In general, four categories of U.S. foundations are currently in place: independent, company-sponsored, operating, and community foundations, according to Jacobs (2006).

Under U. S. tax codes and the regulations of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), independent, corporate, and operating foundations are classified as private foundations; but community foundations are classified as public charities under the tax law, so they observe different rules and regulations under tax law and general IRS law, unlike private foundations.

Independent Foundations

Independent foundations, established by an individual or the members of a family, are also known as “family foundations.” They constitute the largest group among

U. S. foundations, represented by 88% of all U. S. foundations, contributing 78% of the annual dollars or grants from the distribution of all U. S. foundations’ contributions or funding, and owning 86% of all foundation assets (Kelly, 1998; Renz et al., 1995). The fund resources of independent foundations primarily derive from a single source: either one person or a family.

According to IRS regulations, the primary function of independent foundations is to make and distribute their grants to public charities or on behalf of public interest; thus, the fluctuation, appreciation, or depreciation of family foundations’ wealth in capital and assets, without doubt, directly control more or less the extent to which their potential capacity, ability, and facility in wealth allow them to provide the type and volume of the grants they offer.

National economic cycles and the developmental fluctuation amplitudes of many capital markets, such as the stock and bond markets, play critical roles in deciding independent foundations’ asset growth and wealth increase. For example, the assets of the

Michigan-based Kellogg Foundation increased 761% during the 1980s, allowing it to triple its grants from $50 million in 1981 to $154 million in 1991 (Kelly, 1998; Renz et al., 1995). The booming stock market of the mid-1990s helped increase the wealth of many foundations, such as the Ford Foundation, whose assets increased by nearly $1 billion in 1995, making the Ford Foundation the largest independent foundation as of that year.

Another significant aspect of independent foundations is that 75% of them are family foundations, whose funded donors, including family members, friends, lawyers, or bank trustees, have the authority to administer them. Payout rate is another feature of independent foundations: Each private foundation must pay out at least 5% of the market value of its entire assets to the public for philanthropic purposes. Independent foundations are allowed by the U. S. government to include their operating expenses and costs when itemizing their payout rate. These operating expenditures and costs “include

86 administrative and operating costs, fees and honoraria for board members, loans made for charitable projects, and costs of constructing, renovating, and maintaining buildings and equipment” (Kelly, 1998, p. 576).

Company-Sponsored Foundations

Company-sponsored foundations, or corporate foundations, are funded by corporations or other for-profit organizations; and their continuous grant sources come from annual corporate earnings before tax in the form of endowments, annual contributions, or both. Corporate foundations supply approximately 14% of foundation dollars but own less than 4% of foundation assets (Kelly, 1998). The fluctuation of economic development has direct influence on corporate earnings and then exerts indirect impact on the stabilization of corporate foundations’ contributions to individual and institutional recipients, especially during depressed periods. One of the primary purposes for establishing company-sponsored foundations is to stabilize contribution sources of corporate foundations (Kiger, 2000).

Corporate foundations also have the primary function of providing grants to society. Similar to the relationship between family foundations and individuals, the corporate foundation is regarded as an extension of its sponsor (Kelly, 1998). Hence, corporate foundations usually maintain close ties with their companies, and they also support their companies’ giving objectives. In addition, the majority of corporate foundations employ their parent companies’ directors and employees on their boards of trustees and staff.

Reciprocal relationships exist in company-sponsored foundations because parent companies use their corporate foundations to hedge tax liabilities in order to maximize the profits “by giving more [or less] to their foundations in higher [or lower] profit years and years when tax rates are high [or low]” (Kelly, 1998, p. 578; Webb, 1994). This relationship also eliminates the negative effects of fluctuations in earnings of parent companies on the annual grant distributions of corporate foundations. The parent company can avoid the high capital-gains tax when dealing with high-appreciated property by transferring or donating such a property to its foundation. Another advantage of the connection of parent companies with their foundations is that gifts made overseas through their foundation are deductible.

The corporate foundation payout rate resembles that of the independent foundation. According to Jacobs (2006) each corporate foundation receives endowments

and annual contributions from a profit-making corporation and maintains a small

endowment, paying out most contributions received annually in grants or maintaining the

endowment to cover contributions in years when parent corporate profits are down.

Operating Foundations

Operating foundations devote at least 85% of their income to their activities, which

include the program services they operate. In other words, they confer some outside

grants, using the money these grants raise to pay their employees to carry out their

programs or activities. Their funds also come from a single source. Of all U. S.

foundations, operating foundations represent about 6%, but this type contributes only 1%

of the total grant money (Kelly, 1998). Most operating foundations do not contribute to

the public; therefore, they do not appear in Jacobs’ (2006) Foundation Directory.

The main function of the operating foundation is to put financial resources into

conducting research or providing a direct service. In other words the primary purpose of

the operating foundation is to conduct research and engage in social welfare or other

programs determined by its governing body or charter. Its endowment usually comes

from a single source, and few grants related to the foundation’s programs are offered

(Jacobs, 2006).

Community Foundations

Funded by multiple donors, community foundations exist to serve their local

communities or specific communities or areas, usually distributing their grants or

contributions to specific communities located in their locale. Their grants or contributions

they constitute about 7% of all U. S. foundation dollars, and they represent the smallest

number of all U. S. foundation populations, about 2% (Kelly, 1998).

Community foundations are a hybrid of U. S. philanthropy (Kelly, 1998). They raise

money from the public as public charities and make grants as foundations, combining two

functions—fundraising and contributing—in one kind of organization. In short, they broadly raise money, wisely pool and invest it, and specifically use investment income in order to realize their wishes and to meet local community needs (Gagen-McCarthy,

1993).

The perspectives and structure of community foundations differ from those of the majority of U.S. foundations in critical ways. First, this kind of foundation handles the

broad and diversified resources of endowment funds, no matter the quantitative

arrangement, large or small, or the qualitative limitation, restricted or unrestricted.

Second, the boards of community foundations are not self-perpetuating (P. D. Hall,

1989); they are composed of public officials and other members of community

organizations, lending a broadly representative character to foundation decisions. Thus,

grant decision-making is the consequence of the work of a diversely composed team,

unlike that of independent and corporate foundations, whose board members share

similar backgrounds. Third, they often designate for-profit firms to perform their grant- making functions for the purpose of separation from their asset management (P. D. Hall,

1989). The key purpose of community foundation grants is to assist or fulfill social, educational, religious, or other charitable needs in a specific community or region.

Incentives for Foundation Giving in the U. S.

Tax Effects and Tax Regulations

Several factors, directly or indirectly and more or less, relate to motivation or incentives for giving or grant making by U. S. foundations. These include fluctuation in the accumulation of foundation assets or parent companies’ annual earnings, the trends in foundation philanthropists’ preferences or popular governmental policies, and changes in tax regulations and systems. The first two factors noted above influence the grant making of U. S. foundations. In this section, the researcher has focused on the incentives for grant making resulting from the tax regulations in the USA. Before the 1960s the U. S. government adopted free and open attitudes toward the development and operation of foundations because at that time people had full confidence in the self-discipline in place

in these organizations. Prior to the 1950s, official data and records regarding foundations

were limited to annual reports as indicated on the four-page Form 990-A of the Internal

Revenue Service of the Treasury Department. Basically, the information available on

Form 990-A was “incomplete, . . . numerical and financial in nature, . . . and unavailable for public examination” (Kiger, 2000, p. 65). Philanthropists eventually needed more detailed information about their companies’ wealth or foundations; moreover, the U. S. government determined that it was necessary to have a tax and law system to regulate the organization of foundations in the United States. Several hearings about the new and copious information on foundations took place, resulting in the formation of the Cox and

Reece Committee of the U. S. Congress, whose purpose was to investigate U. S. foundations in the 1950s. In addition, one of the advocates of the Tax Reform Act of

1969, the late Congressman Wright Patman, struggled to push Congress to impose government regulation on foundations. He emphasized at least two important functions of this Act for the United States. One was to improve the accountability of U. S. foundations; the other was to give the IRS more effective regulatory authority (Freeman,

1981). Furthermore, the Tax Reform Act of 1969 was the first piece of legislation in

American history to provide a form of national tax on an American philanthropic institution—the foundation (Kiger)—so the Act exerted significant impact on philanthropic foundations in many ways, including their financial reporting and disclosure; their investment behavior, taxable contents, and arrangements; and the relationship between foundations and their parent companies. The most important influence was apparently to reduce the incentives for foundation giving because this Act

91 lowered the highest tax rate of corporation income tax from 70% to 50%. Clotfelter

(1989) also pointed out that federal tax policy strongly impacted “the level and distribution of charitable giving in the United States” (p. 124). Schiff (1989) explored the influence of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 on charitable giving through economic models, finding that the Act reduced donations by 10%, and “slightly decreased corporate giving”

(p. 140). His finding differed from Clotfelter’s (1989) estimate of a 5% decline in corporate giving resulting from the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Modern Foundation Giving Incentives

According to Westphal (2006), today’s billionaire philanthropists, such as Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett, Herbert and Marion Sandler, Michael Milken, and

Gordon Moore, have different perspectives on the charitable giving of the past. They donate sizable amounts of their money regularly and rapidly, aggressively leading and involving themselves in whatever programs to which they choose to donate; their foundations require a higher level of feedback from the programs they fund for the purpose of accountability. Some of these modern philanthropists strongly desire to overcome social ills, such as poverty and hunger, in order to build a new world through their philanthropic movements.

Higher Education and Foundations

In general, to fulfill their goals and purposes, philanthropic foundations provide contributions and make grants to higher education institutions every year, choosing a proper or appropriate institution from all grant applicants. Selecting a grant recipient depends on whether or not the grants “enable institutions of higher education to carry out

92 goals identified at the school” (Elliott, 2006, p. 16). In other words, the reason or motive for foundation grants to higher education derives from professional studies or research taking place on campus. In addition, practitioners in professional fields can realize the goals of the foundation, the philanthropist, or society. Although “foundations at the start were dissatisfied with existing higher education” (Hollis, 1938, p. 294), they had to cooperate with higher education in order to promote the programs that university or college professors have developed.

This section of the literature review regards contributions of foundations to U. S. higher education, especially incentives and purposes, awarding of grants, strategies, and decision-making processes, which the researcher developed for use in this dissertation.

Purposes. Andrew Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth (1889) fully disclosed his foundations’ ultimate purposes. He pointed out that foundations should invest wealth in the other persons to improve the communities in both the present and the future.

American foundations like Carnegie’s have influenced academic development, institutional policy, and even campus culture while serving as financial funding sources for HEIs. As cited in Clotfelter (2006), Cheit and Lobman (1974) asserted that foundations are critical patrons of higher education and play a significant role in the progress of America’s colleges and universities. During the 20th-century foundations helped to transform American medical education, establish colleges for African

Americans in the South, conduct social science research, enact the national faculty pension plan, apply Web-based technology in the publication of research, and introduce

new interdisciplinary fields like “area studies, city planning, women’s studies, urban

studies, and public policy studies” (Clotfelter, 2006, p. 214).

Over time the general purposes of foundations gradually restated the “core

values” of society. According to purpose statements from the Carnegie Corporation of

New York, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Ford Foundation, general purposes are

“to contribute to the advancement of knowledge and to improvements in the general

human condition” (as cited in Clotfelter, 2006, p. 220).

Grants and interaction. Regulated by law, foundations in the USA have to

distribute a minimum percentage of their assets each year in grants. According to this

regulation, foundations seek grant recipients to perform their tasks in accordance with

their principles and goals; therefore, the way a foundation distributes grants more or less

discloses its overall objectives and practical orientation (Clotfelter, 2006). Foundations usually pursue the best grant recipients to achieve the foundation objectives.

Foundations exist to change and improve the current situation at higher education institutions, communities, society, and even the world; and under a foundation’s overall objective, elitism and reformist inclinations are inevitable because foundations deal with colleges and universities (Clotfelter, 2006). The basic interaction between foundations and higher education institutions includes university proposal solicitation, submission and consideration, grant approval, fund payment, project performance, and result reports

(Clotfelter, 2006). In other words, one incentive for foundation giving to higher education

is to “frequently seek more of a problem focus and a result they can see in a limited time”

(Bacchetti, 2006, p. 255). Bacchetti also observed the interactive relationship between

foundations and higher education in the United States, concluding that “no foundation

has a comprehensive grasp of higher education and few in higher education understand

foundation motives and styles” (p. 257). No wonder “foundations look outward at issues

affecting multiple institutions; a higher education institution looks inward at issues

affecting itself” (p. 258). Because the establishment of each foundation was based

different donors’ goals with their monetary capital, each foundation’s style varies in

funded objectives and practical orientation.

The connection between the marketing of foundations and higher education

institutions is not a simple matter. Personnel at higher education institutions have scarce

opportunity to make a connection and cultivate an inside track to foundations (Bacchetti,

2006). Because of marketing issues, institutional reputation becomes a critical influential

factor for foundation program staffs to decide which college or university to receives

funds (Bacchetti). For instance, the top 100 higher education institutions received 70% of the total 2004 foundation grants from the top 100 foundations in the United States. In addition to campus reputation as an important decisive factor, personal contacts are vital; thus connecting with a savvy broker or an effective insider is critical for college or

university fundraisers applying for foundation grants (Bacchetti).

Philanthropic Foundation Donations to Higher Education

Philanthropic or donation behaviors of corporate foundations are inclined to

follow corporate philanthropic patterns. Different types of foundations exist, especially in

Asia, such as publicly funded grant-making foundations established by various organizations. Baron (1994) indicated a “great diversity in the types of philanthropic

institutions and foundation-like entities in Asia” (p. 2). This part of literature review

concentrates on noncorporate foundations and their behaviors surrounding philanthropic

donations to society or to PHEIs, but only limited literature covers noncorporate

foundation philanthropic donation behaviors. In the United States, the main mission of

foundations is to serve the public in need through activities like “providing grants and

services, making loans, conducting research, holding conferences, publishing reports, and

undertaking the related activities” (Boris, 2001, p. 202). Fundamentally, foundations are

formed by individuals, families, and business corporations: These take the form of private

and public foundations in American society. The former include independent foundations,

operating foundations, and community foundations; the latter are public charities, such as

women’s foundations, Ms. Foundation for Women, Seventh Generation Fund, Haymarket

People’s Fund, and U.S. government-established foundations like the National Science

Foundation. Noncorporate foundations include operating foundations like the Kettering

Foundation of Ohio, community foundations like the Cleveland Community Foundation, and public foundations like the National Endowment for the Humanities. Specific principles or objectives often dictate the operation of these foundations. For example, if an operating foundation emphasizes academic research, higher education institutions can apply for its research grants; but if this operating foundation runs an art museum, colleges or universities have fewer opportunities to obtain its grants or donations unless they have programs and projects related to those of the art museum.

Conclusion

Foundations represent a treasure trove for fundraisers in HEIs, whether in the

USA or Taiwan. Foundations blend philanthropy, governmental policies, social needs, and other social factors. In short, foundations are complex organizations; therefore, HEI fundraisers should note any factors that influences philanthropists’ donating incentives or motivation, such as adjustment in tax rates, changes in tax regulations or philanthropists’ preferences or foci, and other social changes, such as the new breed of young, wealthy donors made up of about 5 million millionaires in the United States (D. Elliott, 2006).

Armed with this information, fundraisers can plan and design precise and reachable fundraising projects or marketing plans.

Chapter Conclusions

This study was motivated by a need to investigate the willingness and incentives of Taiwanese businesses and foundations to donate to public higher education in order to build the fundraising reference base for fundraising administrators at PHEIs. This literature review has provided insights beneficial to PHEI administrators in Taiwan who wish to move beyond the shame traditionally associated with seeking funds from business organizations and to learn about the importance of professional fundraising. In addition, business entrepreneurs should establish policy for philanthropic donations, making them an organizational priority in order to assist PHEIs to raise funds in accordance with

Taiwan’s government policy of 1996 as well as to build good will and enhance their own positive social image. Doing so constitutes a win–win situation for all three entities. The

literature review has provided historical and theoretical aspects of Western fundraising

knowledge and theories, which served as the theoretical framework for the construction of the three questionnaires used in this research. These three documents not only allowed the opportunity to examine or investigate Taiwan’s fundraising atmospheres but also to construct a fundraising system by exploring the research problem and proposing answers to the five research questions in Chapter 1. The content of Chapter 3 turns to the methodology used in this study for collecting relevant first-hand data, analyzing the collected information, and responding to the five research questions with the information garnered from the National Survey of Higher Education Institutions in Taiwan (NSH), the National Survey of Corporations in Taiwan (NSC), and the National Survey of

Foundations in Taiwan (NSF).

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This study derives from the intersection of two dynamic professional fields:

higher education fundraising and corporate and foundation giving. The former is a

consequence of the privatization of public universities or colleges in many countries

worldwide (Heath, 1997). With the privatization of some government-controlled businesses, “Britain led the world” (Heath, p. 24); however, the global privatization of public higher education institutions (PHEIs) emerged in the United States of America in the mid-1980s (Varghese, 2007; Heath). The latter—corporate and foundation giving—

entails the construction of models for giving to PHEIs through social and philanthropic

activities currently in place in American corporations and foundations.

Based on these understandings, the researcher interviewed representatives of

corporations, foundations, and PHEIs in Taiwan, using an interview protocol to investigate their incentives or motives for donating to Taiwan PHEIs. The purpose of doing so was to discover whether or not Taiwan’s fundraising in higher education implies

(i.e., present but hidden) or contains (i.e., apparent) specific elements of the American

giving stereotypes and theories typically found in corporations and foundations.

This researcher was inspired to examine possible connections between these two

areas. Many scholars in the social sciences and philanthropy have examined behaviors

and activities in their fields by applying theoretic structures to analyze phenomena,

problems, or topics in their disciplines. Fundraising in higher education can perhaps

99 disclose the principles or the spirit of the demand side of fundraising. In other words theoretic analyses may provide some explanations of various aspects of higher education fundraising. At the outset of this investigation, the researcher’s assumptions were untested; hence, this study facilitated preliminary cognition and understanding of the relationships between PHEI fundraising and corporate and foundation giving as well as set the cornerstone for future related research.

This chapter analyzes three surveys and the corporate and foundation giving interviews in order to understand their donation incentives and decisions about fund recipients among Taiwanese PHEIs. In addition the researcher sought to understand corporate and foundation perspectives and attitudes toward the 1996 Taiwan public university and college fund-raising regulation. Table 3.1 displays the structure of the research methodology, including the process and procedure of this study. This chapter contains research design, research strategy, sample population for the study, instrumentation, treatment of the data, limitations, and summary.

Table 3.1 Research Methodology Units First Population Second Population Third Population Item (PHEIs) (Corporations) (Foundations) Main Methodology Mixed Methodology (Quantitative and Qualitative Methods) Research Strategy Survey Survey, Interview Research Designs Survey, Correlation Survey, Correlation, Existential Phenomenology Sample size 57 151/26* 99/21* Statistical Analysis Description, Description, Description, Discriminant Analysis Logistic Regression Logistic Regression Instruments NSH NSC, KIQ** NSF, KIQ** * Survey sample size/Interview sample size, ** Key Interview Questions

100

Research Questions and Related Theoretical Framework

Chapter one initiated five research questions to orientate which ways should be directed for reflecting the title of this study as well as to explore how to construct the connection between Taiwan’s public higher education funding and social donations from private organizations. The five research questions are as follows:

1. What kinds of groups are most inclined to give funds to PHEIs? (Q1)

2. What incentives motivate these groups to give funds to PHEIs in Taiwan? (Q2)

3. How do these groups decide which PHEIs to fund? (Q3)

4. How has corporate and foundation giving to PHEIs changed since the 1996 government policy was instituted? (Q4)

5. What factors or variables influence the public higher education fundraising network in Taiwan? (Q5)

Each research question has its theoretical framework and connects with one another to initiate the blueprint for this connection construction for PHEIs and enterprises and foundations in Taiwan. For instance, this investigation started from knowing what kinds of groups are most inclined to give funds to PHEIs by a designed survey (NSH) to the first population (see Table 3.1). The reason for choosing the descriptive survey as a research method to answer Q1 is to consider efficiently and effectively observing this social phenomenon, an organization or group giving to PHEIs in Taiwan. Two theories support the descriptive survey. One is the theory of effective conceptualization of a phenomenon; the other is the most appropriate population selection (Hyman, 1955). The first theory explains how making survey research has a more appropriate

101

conceptualization toward a social phenomenon or a population. The second one refers to

how to select “the most appropriate group within which to study the phenomenon”

(Hyman, p. 92). The other kinds of research methods, such as interview and case study,

do not fit this character to address a social phenomenon.

As for Q2, Q3, Q4, and Q5 in this investigation, research methods like surveys

and interviews were used to explore actual responses from the second and third

populations (see Table 3.1). The survey method used two designed questionnaires or

instruments (see Table 3.1), NSC and NSF. The regular interview method was applied via

two kinds of key interview questions (KIQ) to Taiwanese corporations and foundations

which are the second and third populations described above. The correlation theory of the

statistics supports NSC and NSF surveys. The researcher put all concepts of Q2 through

Q5 into the NSC and NSF in order to investigate these two populations in Taiwan

relating to their past donating behavior (Yes/No). In other words, under the infrastructure

of correlation theory in statistics, the statistical relationship between the concepts of Q2

to Q5 and the giving of decision-making in the second and third populations were presented in Chapter four. Existential phenomenology theory supports this interview method, helping to understand Taiwan’s private organizations’ giving phenomenon to

PHEIs from 48 Taiwanese entrepreneurs’ Q&A conversations, which were in accordance

with these two qualitative KIQs. To follow its research approaches, the existential

phenomenology theory (Von Eckartsberg, 1986) helps this study to clarify, for example,

donating incentives in Q2, the real reasons for Taiwanese entrepreneurs’ giving

incentives to PHEIs.

102

Research Design

Mixed methodology served as the main research method for this study because of

the following research purposes, conceptualizations, logic, and current Taiwan business

management cultures. First, based on the characteristics and goals of this research and

according to the typology of the research purpose (Newman, Ridenour, Newman, &

DeMarco, 2003), this study had three general research purposes: to (a) “add to the

knowledge base” (p. 176) of PHEI fundraising, (b) help PHEI fundraisers “understand

[the] complex [social] phenomena” (p. 179) involved in giving by enterprises and

foundations, and (c) “uncover relationships” [between businesses/industries and higher

education by] exploring phenomena” (p. 176) of higher education fundraising activities.

Thus, the researcher used quantitative and qualitative research methods (mixed

methodology) in order to achieve these three research purposes.

Second, using more than one research method helped the researcher (a)

understand social phenomena from the differing perspectives of various methodologies

and (b) best answer each individual research question (Morse, 2003). Hence, knowledge

of the principles of mixed-methods design was necessary, including to “recognize the

theoretical drive of the study and the role of the imported component in the project, to

adhere to the methodological assumptions of the base method, and to work with as few

data sets as possible” (Morse, p. 193). For this study, its conceptualization and logic were built in order to describe, discover, or explore the relationship between corporate and foundation giving and PHEI fundraising in Taiwan; therefore, the theoretical drive of this research was inductive (Morse, p. 193). In terms of the research questions and purposes,

103 qualitative research methods were a good fit and carried the potential for success.

Theoretically, qualitative research methodology focuses on the experiences of people and

“defines ‘truth’ as a human phenomenon” (Bender, 1985, p. 47). Given this theoretical view, the researcher sought to understand unique human experiences—the reflections and attitudes of corporate and foundation personnel toward PHEI fundraising—and to analyze

(a) the incentives behind giving by corporations and foundations to PHEIs in Taiwan, (b) the implications of their responses to the 1996 public higher education fundraising policy, and (c) the key variables or causes in the network of concepts dealing with fundraising interactions between enterprises and PHEIs. The researcher used the phenomenological perspective of qualitative inquiry (Bentz & Rehorick, 2008; Conklin, 2007) to explore the incentives or motivation of corporate and foundation giving to PHEIs in Taiwan by interviewing people who are in charge of fund distribution to education at corporations or foundations. More specifically, the phenomenological perspective of qualitative interviews was used because it “specifies the nature of the knowledge sought by the researcher” (deMarrais, 2004, p. 53) according to the essence of the interviewed participants’ experiences (van Manen, 1990). As for quantitative research methods, the researcher designed three national surveys for personnel at Taiwanese corporations, foundations, and PHEIs to investigate the incentives or motivations, processes, and decision making behind corporate and foundation giving to PHEIs in Taiwan. In addition, these three surveys included an investigation of the 1996 PHEI endowment policy from the perspectives of managers in Taiwanese corporations and foundations.

104

Third, in general, people in charge of fund distributions at corporations or foundations are in positions of management; they are usually busy with their routines and seeking merit raises. In addition they often have little interest in general academic research or surveys because of their full and busy schedules and because these research surveys are not directly related to their business and merit pursuit. Hence, in the pilot study of the NSC, they typically either rejected the survey altogether or answered the questions haphazardly. As a consequence of the corporate culture, mixed methodology was required for this study. Furthermore, the Taiwanese corporate phenomenon under study in this research project included managers’ general attitudes toward Taiwanese academia; specifically, attitudes toward Taiwanese corporate and foundation philanthropic activities with regard to Taiwan’s PHEIs derived from entrepreneurs’ general perspectives, attitudes, and thoughts about these institutions. By contrast some situations have resulted in PHEI administrators’ or fundraisers’ familiarity with or understanding of corporate and foundation giving so that they can enact or invent more appropriate fundraising strategies to reach their primary fundraising goals.

The researcher designed open- and closed-ended questions for the three national questionnaires in order to encourage survey participants to disclose insider information that the researcher needed in order to evaluate a public institution, including the way the corporation or foundation planned to donate and the way an owner of a corporation viewed donations to PHEIs both personally and organizationally. The purpose of the closed-ended question was to investigate corporate and foundation willingness to donate to PHEIs in Taiwan. In addition this design helped the researcher understand

105 organizational attitudes and perspectives on the 1996 fundraising policy for PHEIs. The open-ended questions helped the researcher understand corporate and foundation incentives and motivation to donate money to PHEIs in Taiwan as well as determine what kinds of factors influence PHEI fundraising activities taking place at corporations or foundations.

Mixed Methodology as Main Research Method

This study employed a mixed methodology: the survey designs, correlation and regression designs, and existential phenomenological interviews (Cope, 2005). Based on the following two reasons, mixed methodology was a more appropriate research approach than any other. First of all, the five research questions stipulated what kinds of data should be collected. For instance, the first research question—“What kinds of groups are most inclined to give funds to PHEIs?”—was a quantitative question designed to elicit a category-based answer like technology, Internet, or traditional industries. A quantitative survey investigation typically provides an instrument to answer this type of question

(Yin, 1989). Likewise, a qualitative method functioned to ascertain why such groups donate to PHEIs (Rudestam & Newton, 2007, p. 37). A qualitative resource usually represents an individual participant’s situation, not a whole picture, because qualitative interview participants are too limited to represent a whole population. The second research question—“What incentives motivate these groups to give funds to PHEI in

Taiwan?”—required only qualitative information to infer or conclude their incentives or reasons to donate to PHEIs (Seidman, 2006, p. 9). Although this research question could be answered by quantitative methods, quantitative results could not reveal the inner world

106

or life text of donation decision-making taking place at corporations or foundation as

qualitative results could (Rudestam & Newton, p. 39; Stewart & Mickunas, 1990, p. 63).

Second, mixed methodology usually provides a better understanding of the research

problems than either type by itself (Creswell, 2005). Because the researcher tried to

connect PHEI fundraising with corporate or foundation donations, a mixed methodology

provided an opportunity not only to explore the current Taiwanese PHEI fund-raising

conditions and consequences but also to understand what top corporate or foundation administrators thought of PHEI giving or donation processes. In addition, the last research question—“What factors or variables influence Taiwan’s PHEI fundraising network?”—was better understood by conducting a mixed methodology study because

the combination of analyzing qualitative and quantitative data clarified the actual factors

or variables operating in Taiwan’s PHEI fund-raising world.

Types of Mixed Method Design in This Study

Triangulation design was used in this study to equalize the priority and importance of data, data collection, and the results of qualitative and quantitative methods

(Creswell, 2005; Drew, Hardman, & Hosp, 2008). In the interpretation, triangulation design demonstrated quantitative and qualitative findings simultaneously. This study equally revealed qualitative and quantitative findings, consequences, and perspectives in parallel from (Creswell, 2005; Drew et al.). The three different types of mixed method design included triangulation, explanatory, and exploratory design (Creswell, 2005). As for explanatory design, some scholars call it a two-phase model (Creswell, 1994); its data collection process entails first quantitative data and then qualitative data. The aim of the

107

data analysis is to explain quantitative information results with support of the qualitative

data (Creswell, 2005; B. Johnson & Christensen, 2004). The exploratory design, as

opposed to the explanatory design, focuses on collecting qualitative data first and then

quantitative data for the purpose of using the latter information to explain relationships

among explored phenomenon with the former (Creswell, 2005; B. Johnson & Christensen,

2004). Because this study was the first research about PHEI fundraising and

organizational giving to education in Taiwan, its outcomes were essential to emphasize

the contribution and importance of qualitative and quantitative methods; therefore,

triangulation design was an appropriate research design for this study. Its outcomes are essential to understanding the PHEI fund-raising and corporate- and foundation-giving culture; therefore, triangulation design was appropriate.

Survey Research Design Used in This Study

The reasons for using survey research design derived from the following conditions. First of all, no research relating to corporate or foundation donations to PHEIs was available prior to this study. Until then, similar research had focused on group giving to charitable organizations or educational institutions, not to PHEIs. Thus, this research addresses issues relevant to PHEI administrators, including fundraising administrators

(FAs), and managers whose companies and foundations have surplus profit and a desire to help higher education. In other words, this study has built a communication channel between the PHEI fund-raising business and corporate or foundation giving. Second, survey design is one of best and most popular research designs to investigate trends in a single population (Creswell, 2005). This study investigated three populations—PHEIs,

108

companies, and foundations in Taiwan—to understand their general concepts of, attitudes

toward, and opinions about education donations. Third, survey design is a fast way to

understand one phenomenon occurring in a population because it provides more viable

data than other research designs, such as observation or historical research (Fink &

Kosecoff, 1998; Fowler, 2009). Survey research design obtains data directly from the

target population, such as companies and foundations in Taiwan. The researcher created

three questionnaires for the three different populations under investigation in this study.

National Survey of Higher Education (NSH)

The researcher designed the survey entitled National Survey of Higher Education

Institutions in Taiwan (NSH) in order to discover the importance of academic values in

Taiwan’s PHEI fundraising. (See Appendix A for NSH in English and Appendix B for

NSH in Madarin) This section focuses on information relating to three particular items that were included on the NSH: size of fundraising staffs, age of the institution, and governmental policy and fundraising performance of institutions. NSH was designed to elicit information from fundraising administrators (FAs) at PHEIs in Taiwan to understand their (a) positions on fundraising, (b) opinions about the 1996 PHEI self- sufficiency policy, (c) thoughts about categories of businesses and industries that donated and will donate to them, and (d) attitudes toward soliciting and accepting corporate and foundation donations. The purpose of the NSH, which was administered at all 57 PHEIs in Taiwan, was to describe trends in PHEI fundraising in Taiwan.

109

National Survey of Corporations (NSC)

The researcher designed the National Survey of Corporations (NSC) to explore determinants for corporate giving to Taiwan’s PHEIs. (See Appendix C for NSC in

English and Appendix D for NSC in Madarin) Incentives, purposes, strategies, decision- making processes in place in U. S. HEIs are covered in this section; they served as background for the items that appeared on the NSC. The second questionnaire in this study is the NSC, designed to explore top Taiwanese corporate administrators’ incentives, reasons, purposes, and strategies in making decisions about donations to

PHEIs as well as donation focuses, communication points and methods, evaluations, and other factors relevant to those decisions, including attitudes toward the 1996 PHEI self- sufficiency policy. Overall, the NSC was constructed to reveal descriptive trends in corporate donations to PHEIs. The researcher based the NSC on theories and knowledge about U.S. professional fundraising.

National Survey of Foundations (NSF)

Based on theories and knowledge about professional fundraising in the USA, the third questionnaire was NSF. It was designed to elicit information about top Taiwanese foundation executives’ incentives, reasons, purposes, and strategies used in making decisions about donations to PHEIs as well as donation focus, donor and donee communication points and methods, giving evaluations, and other factors relevant to those decisions, including attitudes toward the 1996 PHEI self-sufficiency policy.

Overall, the NSF was designed to reveal trends in donations made by Taiwanese

110 foundation to PHEIs. Appendix E for NSF in English and Appendix F for NSF in

Mandarin demonstrate the details of NSF.

The Pilot Study for the NSC

Based on theories and knowledge of professional fundraising and behaviors of corporate giving in the USA and Taiwan in Chapter Two, the researcher designed and piloted the NSC in October and November 2006. Identified with the Internet Yellow

Pages, 80 corporations in diverse industries were emailed the NSC survey with an invitation to participate. Unfortunately, this approach failed as did attempts to secure participants by phone. Taiwanese corporations are typically inundated with questionnaires from academic researchers, whose requests are rarely accommodated. Few representatives of the 80 corporations contacted requested the NSC by FAX or completed the online version. The response rate for the pilot NSC was consequently very low, so the researcher eventually resorted to using personal resources, including parents, friends, and relatives, to secure completed NSCs from corporations. Rotary Club members contacted through personal networking highly recommended that the researcher thoroughly study

Taiwanese corporate decision-making models and routines in advance of the dissertation research. Equipped with this knowledge, the researcher would have a better design, more professional content, and necessary terminology for the NSC designed for Taiwanese entrepreneurs. Ultimately, 9 participants completed the pilot NSC. Five samples chose

“No” for the first question, so they answered only questions 11 through 14; four NSC participants selected “Yes” in answer to the first question, so they answered only questions 2 through 9.

111

The next step was to analyze the five samples on which the participants answered no to the first question and the four samples on which the participants answered yes to the first question (N = 9) using the SPSS. On a Likert Scale of 1 through 4 (1, strongly agree;

2, agree; 3, disagree; and 4, strongly disagree), participants indicated their answers to questions about corporate donations to PHEIs: incentives, determining recipients, evaluation, focuses, attitudes, and opinions toward government policy (see Appendixes C

& D).

Cronbach’s alpha (α) for the variable involving incentive to donate reached -4.17

(See Table 3.2). No negatively worded item or question appeared in this dimension, so a

negative α value may be explained as follows: First, after examining participants’

responses, the researcher concluded that they may not have answered the questions

consistently. Second, the four cases for the incentive dependent dimension may not have

been correlated conceptually. The interitem correlation also supported this possibility.

For the variable related to determining donation recipients, recognition, α was 0.75

(Table 3.2), indicating good reliability.

For the evaluation variable, the α was 0.00 (Table 3.2), indicating unacceptable

reliability. For the variable involving purposes to donate, the α was 0.63 (Table 3.2),

indicating acceptable reliability. For the attitudes item, the α reached a satisfactory level

of 0.79 (Table 3.2), indicating a consistent reliability. For the variable on focus, α was

0.72 (Table 3.2), indicating acceptable reliability. Cronbach’s alpha for responses to

Taiwan’s government policy reached only 0.07 (Table 3.2), indicating its reliability was

too low; therefore, the researcher had to rewrite the question about government policy,

112 splitting it into three segments. The α for including donations to PHEIs in the mission/vision statements of corporations was 0.85 (Table 3.2), indicating consistent reliability.

Table 3.2 National Survey of Corporations Reliability Pilot Test Variables M S.D. α N Variables M S.D. α N Incentives: 1 2.25 0.50 4 Focuses: 1 2.50 0.58 4 2 2.25 0.50 4 2 2.50 0.58 4 3 3.00 0.00 -4.17 4 3 2.25 0.50 4 4 1.75 0.50 4 4 2.25 0.50 4 5 2.50 0.58 4 5 2.00 0.82 4 Recognition: 1 2.50 1.00 4 6 2.75 0.50 4 2 2.25 0.50 0.75 4 7 2.50 1.26 0.72 4 3 2.75 0.50 4 8 2.00 0.58 4 Evaluation: 1 1.50 0.58 4 9 2.50 0.82 4 2 1.71 0.50 4 10 2.50 0.58 4 3 1.75 0.50 4 11 2.25 0.58 4 0.00 4 2.00 0.82 4 12 2.50 0.96 4 5 2.25 0.50 4 13 2.25 0.58 4 6 2.75 0.50 4 Policy: 1 2.75 0.89 8 Purposes: 1 3.25 0.50 4 2 3.63 1.19 0.07 8 2 3.00 0.00 0.63 4 3 2.25 0.89 8 3 2.00 0.82 4 Statements: 1 2.38 1.19 8 Attitudes: 1 1.75 0.50 4 2 2.13 0.64 0.85 8 2 2.00 0.00 4 3 2.38 0.92 8 3 2.50 0.577 0.79 4 4 2.25 0.50 4 5 2.75 0.50 4 M: Mean, S.D.: Standard Deviation, α: Cronbach alpha, N: Sample Size

The Pilot Study for the NSF

Based on theories and knowledge of professional fundraising and behaviors of foundation giving in the USA and in Taiwan in Chapter Two, the researcher designed and piloted the NSF in October and November 2006. The researcher piloted the NSF in

October and November 2006. He used long-distance calls and the Internet to make this trans-Pacific pilot study possible. To begin the sampling of Taiwanese foundations, the researcher located the Directory of 300 Major Foundations in Taiwan (2004) on the

113 website of the Himalaya Foundation and then downloaded telephone numbers and email addresses for 50 foundations by using a convenient sampling strategy to browse 2 foundations classified under each letter of the alphabet from A to Z. Using the telephone numbers and email addresses of these 50 foundations, the researcher first emailed and then called each one. The email invitation to participate in the pilot study yielded no responses because of numerous difficulties, including technical online problems. These calls took place during one week in the evenings from around 9:00 to 11:00. The researcher had to consider the routine schedules of foundation secretaries, such as their early morning management meetings and lunch hours. Understanding their routines helped the researcher make enough contacts to meet the goal of completed NSF surveys for the pilot study. Switchboard operators usually answered the calls and then connected the researcher to the executives or their secretaries. The researcher extended invitations to these 50 foundation secretaries to relay the NSF pilot study to the heads of their foundations. If they had an interest in doing the NSF pilot study, the researcher had two options to transmit the NSF to them. One was to FAX the NSF; the other was to provide the web address of the online version of the survey. Fortunately, seven foundation executives agreed to complete the NSF, providing the researcher with seven effective samples for the pilot study.

The next step of the NSF pilot study was to analyze these seven sets of data using the SPSS. On a Likert Scale of 1 through 4 (1, strongly agree; 2, agree; 3, disagree; and 4, strongly disagree), participants indicated their answers to questions about foundation

114

donations to PHEIs, specifically incentives, determining recipients, evaluation, focuses,

attitudes, and opinions toward government policy (Appendices E & F).

Table 3.3 National Survey of Foundations Reliability Pilot Test Variables M S.D. α N Variables M S.D. α N Incentives: 1 1.71 0.76 7 Focuses: 1 2.57 0.54 7 2 2.57 0.79 7 2 2.14 0.90 7 3 2.71 0.76 0.78 7 3 1.86 0.69 7 4 2.43 0.79 7 4 2.14 0.90 7 5 2.43 0.98 7 5 2.14 0.69 7 Recognition: 1 1.43 0.79 7 6 3.00 0.82 7 2 1.71 0.95 0.81 7 7 3.14 0.69 7 0.86 3 2.00 1.00 7 8 1.86 0.90 7 Evaluation: 1 1.43 0.79 7 9 2.29 0.76 7 2 1.71 0.95 7 10 2.14 1.07 7 3 2.00 1.00 7 11 2.29 0.49 7 0.93 4 1.57 0.79 7 12 2.14 0.69 7 5 1.43 0.79 7 13 2.71 0.95 7 6 1.71 0.76 7 14 2.43 0.98 7 Purposes: 1 2.00 0.58 7 Policy: 1 2.14 0.69 7 2 2.43 0.79 0.70 7 2 2.86 0.69 0.35 7 3 2.14 0.90 7 3 2.57 0.54 7 Attitudes: 1 2.00 0.82 7 Statements: 1 2.14 0.69 7 2 1.86 0.70 7 2 2.14 0.69 0.88 7 3 1.57 0.79 0.91 7 3 2.43 0.98 7 4 1.86 0.90 7 5 2.43 0.79 7 M: Mean, S.D.: Standard Deviation, α: Cronbach alpha, N: Sample Size

Cronbach’s alpha (α) for the incentive variable reached 0.78 (Table 3.3), indicating a consistent reliability. For the variable involving how to determine recipients, recognition, α was 0.81, marking its consistent reliability. For the evaluation variable, α was 0.93, showing a consistent reliability. For the variable of donating purpose, α was

0.7; its reliability level was acceptable. For the attitude item, α reached 0.91, indicating a consistent reliability. For the focus variable, α was 0.86; its reliability was fine.

Cronbach’s α for the item regarding Taiwan’s government policy reached only 0.35; therefore, its consistent reliability was low so that the researcher had to rework the question about the government policy, separating it into three areas to explore. Alpha for

115

the item on including mention of donating to PHEIs in the foundation’s mission/vision

statement was 0.88, yielding a consistent reliability.

Validity of the NSH, NSC, and NSF

In this pilot study, the test for validity focused on face validity, content validity, and construct validity in order to assure that the investigations based on the NSH, NSC, and NSF fully generated and disclosed attitudes toward philanthropic donations to PHEIs at two kinds of Taiwanese organizations: corporations and foundations. First of all, the translation validity of the NSH, NSC, and NSF required consideration. The researcher designed them in English first and then translated them into Chinese so that he could conveniently investigate Taiwanese organizations. The researcher requested two

Taiwanese faculty members at Kent State University (KSU), Dr. Mei-Chen Lin and Dr.

Ni-Guan Chuang, to check the translation validity for these three surveys. One of the two was in mass communication; the other, in hospitality management. They checked the face validity and content validity. Dr. Lin noted that the NSH, NSC, and NSF in English were accurately and precisely translated into Mandarin and that the Mandarin terms and phrases would be understandable and acceptable to personnel at general Taiwanese

PHEIs, corporations, and foundations, respectively. Dr. Chuang verified that the content and number of questions on the NSH, NSC, and NSF were of a quality sufficient to elicit measurable answers for each question. As for construct validity, by definition it seeks agreement between a theoretical concept and a measuring device or procedure (Howell et al., 2005). In other words, it reveals the real representative responses for research questions and actually discloses correlations and connections between the study purposes

116 and research findings. According to Carmines and Zeller (1991), the steps to qualify construct validity for a research design include first, specifying the theoretical relationships; second, examining the empirical relationships between the measures of the concepts; third, interpreting the empirical evidence “in terms of how it clarifies the construct validity of the particular measure being tested” (p. 23). Therefore, the specification of the theoretical relationships in this study was disclosed as follows. The fundamental concept of the five research questions in chapter 1 of this study were designed to explore decision-making processes at Taiwanese corporations and foundations when executives or managers considered donating to PHEIs in Taiwan.

Hence, their decision-making processes consisted of interactions amongst donation- behavior incentives or reasons, ways to determine the fund to which to contribute, focuses, strategies, purposes, communication methods, attitudes, evaluations, and recognition of and cooperation with governmental policy.

Five Instruments

Five research instruments were used in this study: NSH, NSC, NSF, the

Taiwanese corporation interview protocol, and the Taiwanese foundation interview protocol. The NSH, NSC, and NSF were three different questionnaires specifically designed for three specific populations respectively: PHEIs, Taiwanese corporate groups or small to mid-sized companies, and Taiwanese foundations. The researcher aimed to understand the patterns of corporate and foundation giving on the supply side of fundraising in public higher education in Taiwan. Hence, the researcher designed three national surveys in the form of questionnaires with the following features as the primary

117

instrument of the survey strategy: First, the questionnaires included items that illustrated

participants’ conceptions of donation incentives as well as corporate and foundation

perspectives on the 1996 higher education fundraising policy. Second, the questionnaires

took into account the potential key variables or factors in PHEI fundraising performance

in Taiwan and donations from corporations and foundations.

Based on these two features, the researcher attempted to locate applicable

readymade inventories or instruments instead of engaging in a time-consuming design of researcher-created questionnaires. Unfortunately, no instrument currently available fulfilled these two requirements. To fulfill the first requirement, the researcher developed a draft of the questionnaire by referring to American research findings about corporate and foundation giving to various institutions.

The researcher also designed a draft of key interview questions for investigating incentives for Taiwanese corporate and foundation donations to PHEIs in Taiwan as well as the manner in which they made their final decisions about contribution recipients.

These interview questions included the main motivators of contemporary American philanthropic corporations’ donations to U. S. social programs. All interview instruments were written in Mandarin. Discussed in chapter 2, the primary motivators included marketing, tax saving, social currency, public relations, and social responsibility.

Blueprint for Five Instruments of This Research

The five key incentives motivating corporate giving were covered in three to five questions designed to determine whether or not each corporate gift was induced by any key incentive or a combination of incentives. In addition one section of the interview

118

questions was designed to collect thoughts of the interviewees regarding the Taiwanese

government’s 1996 PHEI fundraising policy. Thus far, this chapter has indicated why this

study necessitated the implementation of the following units: mixed methodology as the

main method; surveys and interviews as research instruments and strategies; survey,

correlation, and existential phenomenology as research designs; and description,

discriminant analysis, and logistic regression as statistical analysis methods. Figure 3.1

illustrates the entire research process and question-to-answer procedure to give the reader

a clear research blueprint.

To summarize, these three surveys had a common purpose: to elicit information

needed to describe trends in fundraising or giving in three populations. The researcher

implemented survey design over samples of three populations in order to describe their

current attitudes toward and opinions on donations to PHEIs. Thus, these three surveys

(NSH, NSC, and NSF) were based on cross-sectional designs to examine current attitudes

and opinions about fundraising among PHEI FAs and chief executive officers (CEO) or

presidents of firms and foundations. Because making appointments for interviews with

PHEI FAs or top-level corporate and foundation managers was difficult, the survey

design offered a way to “study at one point in time” the cross-sectional design (Creswell,

2005, p. 355).

Correlation Research Design Applied in This Study

Each survey in this study involved several variables. The most effective way to

explore the relationships among variables on each survey was with correlation research

design. This study implemented the explanatory design, not the prediction design,

119 because the researcher’s intent was to look only for those factors or variables that influenced PHEIs’ receipt of funds and corporate and foundation decisions on making donations to PHEIs. In other words, the study was designed only to explore the explanatory function and value for the present, not the predictable function for the future.

For the NSH, discriminate analysis was used to explore the relationship among the number of years each PHEI was in operation, full-time fundraisers, part-time fundraisers,

PHEI categories, and whether or not corporations and foundations agreed to donate to

PHEIs. Discriminate analysis was chosen to determine the relationship that these variables relate significantly. For the NSC and the NSF, the researcher implemented logistic regression to explore the factors that influence decisions about corporate or foundation donations in order to transfer qualitative variables, such as incentives, reasons, strategies, and purposes, into quantitative measurable numbers to predict the final decisions about donations made by corporate or foundation CEOs. At this point the discussion turns from quantitative research design to qualitative.

Existential Phenomenology as Analyzing Instrument

The Nature of Donation in Taiwan

Before discussing which qualitative method was appropriate for this study, a comparison of donations made by Taiwanese people to Taoist or Buddhist temples with donations made by Taiwanese organizations to PHEIs is helpful. In Taiwanese society many individuals subscribe to the culture of giving to local temples (“Taiwa,” 2007), either those conveniently located near their residences or famous temples for the unexpected blessings that supposedly result from worship there. Donors believe that

120

“powerful spirits” can solve problems or remove barriers to success; they also go to the temples when they think they have succeeded at school or at work as a result of the spirits’ blessings. Many people donate small amounts of money to the offering boxes in the temples for their peace of mind and safety; the affluent donate large amounts in thanksgiving to the spirits in the temples. Their donations to domestic religion serve as a societal display of faith. Statistically, more religious donors make contributions in

Taiwan (62.53%) than nonreligious charitable donors (47.20%) (W. C. Chang, 2005).

According to W. C. Chang’s research, only 4.07% of all donors in Taiwan donated to academic organizations in 1999, an insignificant percentage.

Regarding the donation behavior of Taiwanese organizations, first, many bosses or top managers of organizations typically donate to their alma mater; however, many of their spouses are involved with folk temple activities (Zhai & Ellison, 2008), so they usually persuade the managers to support or donate to these temples (Participant O,

Interview, December 13, 2007). In addition, some companies in Taiwan have donated money to higher education institutions, often requiring the schools to maintain confidentiality and not to reveal the donation to the media. The managers fear the possible negative results of public knowledge of the donations (Participant Q, Interview,

December 5, 2007). They are usually concerned about extortion or tax audits. In Taiwan, many firms report lower annual profits to the tax bureau to avoid higher taxes (Participant

Q). Thus, managers of these firms are afraid that announcements of their donations will cause the tax bureau to doubt the validity of their financial reports; therefore, donations to

121 education by Taiwanese organizations are usually made privately. By contrast donations made by companies or foundation in the United States are matters of public record.

These phenomena motivated the researcher to study the behavior of Taiwanese corporate and foundation donors to PHEIs in Taiwan. This behavior constitutes a social phenomenon for two reasons. First, Taiwanese corporate and foundation donations to education are occasional events that occur in different areas, and only a few are reported in the media. In other words, donation news is unpopular in Taiwan’s society. Second, in

Taiwan, educational donations have typically arisen from a single organization’s strategy or mission, not from a social movement or a corporate or industrial culture as is typical in the United States; in fact such types of educational donations are uncommon by

American standards. Consequently, the researcher implemented the methods of phenomenology to explore reasons that this behavior was uncommon in Taiwan at the time of this study and, moreover, its motivation and general awareness of it.

Phenomenology

Before explaining why phenomenology was applied as one of the research methods in the mixed methodology of this study, a brief overview of the definitions of phenomenology is necessary. In Thing and Space (1907) Edmund Husserl, a German philosopher known as the father of phenomenology (B. Elliott, 2005; B. Johnson &

Christensen, 2004) depicted individual experience as an important source of knowledge, defining phenomenology as “the individuals’ world of immediate experience” (as cited in

B. Elliott, p. 45). Based on Husserl’s research, the authors of numerous educational research textbooks developed similar definitions for this methodology. The current

122 researcher implemented several definitions more or less related to higher education administration.

Phenomenology is “the individual’s inner world of consciousness and experience”

(B. Johnson & Christensen, 2004). It applies, for example, to higher education administrators who deal not only with administrative routines but also with case-by-case challenges, such as students’ emergent problems. Consistency and flexibility are necessary for successfully coping with these challenges. Moreover, phenomenology involves human beings’ feelings, thoughts, and self-awareness (B. Johnson &

Christensen) of a single phenomenon as when higher education administrators must consider various aspects when making policy and performing other functions on campus.

Thus, they should be familiar with all kinds of campus phenomena, especially student trends, preferences, and even students’ thoughts and feelings. As such, phenomenology is a useful method for studying college student life.

Phenomenology is a common research method in higher education administration.

For instance, Nancy Myers (2000) used this qualitative method in her dissertation investigating “the experience of management consultation [with] supervisors and administrators” in an employment assistance program. Based on her research, one can conclude that phenomenology is useful in investigating a single phenomenon in higher education administration. Likewise, other scholars have made contributions in the application of this method, analyzing policies and plans within organizational management in higher education (e.g., Baum, 1983; Forester, 1989; Lichty & Stewart,

2000; Watson, 2002). Although phenomenology as a method has been criticized by some

123

scholars, such as Hummel (1991), who argued that it is a way of knowing without an all-

faceted and all-purpose understanding of the phenomenon, it still is a useful, feasible

method and serves as a systematic research paradigm with which to explore individual or

group experiences.

In general, the purpose of phenomenology is to discover specific people’s lifeworlds for describing their experiences and understanding of a phenomenon (B. Johnson

& Christensen, 2004). Similarly, in this project the participants shared their donation experiences, recalling backgrounds, reasons, processes, and later the evaluations and impact of their donations to education. Their experiences provided important information needed to analyze the phenomenon of companies and foundations donating to Taiwan’s public higher education.

The next section contains a two-dimensional rationale for choosing phenomenology for the qualitative portion of this study and four limitations of this research used as a rationale to reject three other qualitative approaches. The first dimension began with the research purpose as it relates to choice of methodology.

Because the purpose of this study was to understand why and how Taiwanese organizations donate to public colleges, phenomenology was the most suitable approach.

The phenomenological approach was amenable to inviting participants to describe some of their experiences with a particular phenomenon. The researcher used a snowball survey to contact 26 companies and 21 foundations in Taiwan to locate the interview participants.

124

These 47 participants recalled their experiences with educational donation during scheduled, recorded interviews. An interview appointment was usually negotiated by several phone calls with participants’ secretaries; however, more helpful intermediaries’s connections often facilitated appointments with interview participants. For data security each interview was double recorded with a traditional cassette and a recording pen. The second dimension involved the primary data-collection method. This study included interviews with managers of 26 companies and 21 foundations in Taiwan.

Existential Phenomenology

The types of philosophical phenomenology are transcendental phenomenology, hermeneutic phenomenology, and existential phenomenology (Ehrich, 2003). Existential phenomenology was chosen as the main qualitative method for this research because it emphasizes (a) the tension between essence and existence (Ehrich; Rogers, 1983) and (b) experience as its central concern (Ehrich). The education donation of each group usually resulted from its mission statement and decision guidelines or the philosophy of its top administrator, serving as of the essence of the group’s donation behavior. These education donations also included many processes or procedures and even hidden incentives or reasons behind them, exemplifying the existence of educational donations.

The researcher tried to explore the tension between essence and existence in part to create a researchable problem for the future. A feasible way to observe essence and existence was to know or understand past education donation experiences through interview. The

46 participants were top managers or administrators, representing 46 organizations. They were involved in their groups’ management in the past, of course, including the decision

125

to make a donation to an education institution. Their donation experiences were

representative of their companies’ or foundations’ donations to Taiwan’s national

colleges; therefore, existential phenomenology was determined to be the most appropriate

choice for this study among the three kinds of phenomenological methods.

In phenomenology, two schools of thought are well known. First, the Utrecht

School emphasizes the contribution of phenomenology and argues that human life

experiences and human phenomena have some value in the society (van Manen, 1990). In

addition, this School also stresses the transformation of human phenomena, such as

donation to a public college by an enterprise, into human science pedagogy like a campus

fundraising strategy in higher education administration in order to lend research value

and reference function to human phenomena. In other words, in this study the Utrecht

School served as the bridge to connect the phenomenon of corporate and foundation

donation to higher education in Taiwan. Second, proponents of the Duquesne School

have developed empirical existential phenomenological approaches or criteria:

description, reduction, essence, and intentionality (Giorgi, 1985). These four criteria were

helpful in providing a guideline for this study and categorizing the contents of the 47

interviews into meaningful statements to explain one social phenomenon in Taiwan.

Research Strategy

Interview and survey were the main research strategies in this study. The rationale for these two options among research strategies was that this research focused on

Taiwanese corporate and foundation giving to PHEIs in Taiwan in order to (a) determine what kinds of Taiwanese organizations tend to make more contributions to public

126

colleges, (b) investigate reasons for donating, and (c) trace the entire contribution

process. The researcher, therefore, implemented a combination of two research strategies:

survey and interview. The former strategy dealt with the “what” or “who” issue in the

first research question. The latter provided solutions or answers to the second through

fifth research questions.

The reason for choosing such a combined strategy to answer these five research

questions derived from various features of the research questions. The first research

question—What kinds of groups are most inclined to give funds to PHEIs?—is a “who”

question. According to Robert Yin’s (1989) “categorization scheme for the type of

questions” (p. 17), survey is a feasible strategy. The other research questions included the

following:

Q2: What incentives motivate these groups to give funds to PHEIs in Taiwan?

Q3: How do these groups decide which PHEIs to fund?

Q4: How has corporate and foundation giving to PHEIs changed since the 1996

government policy was instituted?

Q5: What factors or variables influence the public higher education fundraising

network in Taiwan?

To answer the foregoing four research questions, the researcher interviewed the

participants, aligning himself with existing American research findings and concepts

regarding corporate giving and foundation contributions as the key concepts of the framework of the interview protocol and survey questionnaires in this study. Citing

American theories is not amenable to the qualitative research method in which there

127 should be no preexpectation or presumption in interview questions and designs.

Interview, therefore, appeared to be a suitable and achievable research strategy for the other four research questions.

Sample Population for the Study

This study involved three populations in Taiwan: first, the PHEI population; second, corporations; and third, foundations. The researcher investigated the first population by administering the NSH; the second population, the NSC; and the third population, the NSF. The NSH was based on the researcher’s idea for investigating all

FAs at PHEIs in Taiwan regarding their opinions about their campus fundraising work and the 1996 Taiwan government policy. It was tested in a pilot study in the proposal for this dissertation. The NSC and NSF were based on aspects of American corporate and foundation giving. In addition, the researcher garnered perspectives on donations and incentives to contribute to PHEIs in Taiwan from the second and the third populations.

The researcher used several government sources to select corporations and foundations for the survey: the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MoEA), the Ministry of Interior (MoI), the Ministry of Education (MoE), and county governments. These agencies provided the researcher with lists or books containing the names of Taiwanese corporations or foundations via FAX or email.

The First Population

The researcher concentrated on public universities or colleges in Taiwan.

According to information dispensed in 2005 by the MoE, Taiwan had 162 HEIs, including 89 universities, 56 colleges, and 17 junior colleges. In addition at the time of

128 this writing, 45 national or public universities, 9 national or public colleges, and 3 national or public junior colleges operated in Taiwan. According to 2008 resources from the MoE, 57 public universities operated in Taiwan at that time. The researcher made individual contact with the primary FAs for each public college. At least one of the people in charge of raising funds or dealing with this task at each university was asked to complete the National Survey of Higher education (NSH) or answer some questions related to this research. Basically, the researcher had three channels to connect to these people at each national university: (a) participating in conferences or activities arranged for and attended by university FAs and top administrators, (b) networking to find opportunities to meet with university FAs, and (c) making campus calls to contact the people sought by the researcher. Ultimately, the researcher collected 35 viable NSH survey samples from the 57 public universities.

The Second Population

Classifying corporations in a Yellow Pages-style publication, the MoEA identified 16 general categories of Taiwanese industries and businesses, each with several subcategories. The processes of data collection for the National Survey of Corporations

(NSC) fell short of the expectations of the original research proposal. The researcher thought of numerous ways to find corporate groups or small to mid-sized corporations to complete the NSC. For example, the researcher first contacted several business and industrial associations and then talked to or interviewed some members of these associations. Through these networks, the researcher had more opportunities to contact group corporations or larger companies. Second, the researcher tried to contact large

129 social associations, such as Rotary International. From these social groups, the researcher collected some NSCs from many successful small to mid-sized companies. Third, the researcher placed many phone calls to reach large companies listed on the stock exchange in Taiwan, but managers at few listed companies finished the NSC because they had a little time to deal with research surveys; in other words, they did not want their work interrupted by educational researchers. Fourth, the researcher participated in some activities of the MoEA in order to exchange business cards with delegates or managers of some large companies in cooperation with the Taiwan government. The last channel used to collect the viable NSCs was simply asking as many people as possible for help in persuading managers at companies to fill the surveys. Using these strategies, the researcher ultimately received 141 samples of the NSC.

The Third Population

One hundred foundations were selected to represent the various types of foundations in Taiwan: culture and education, social philanthropy, health and hygiene, nonprofit, and others. Because each category of foundations had specific features, this researcher specified the “nature” of the populations of foundations and thus depicted in detail the “specification,” that is, fund-giving, from these foundations (Nickerson, 1985, p. 14). For this study the specification of fund-giving was the contribution of funds to

PHEIs only. In addition, the mission or goal statements of these kinds of foundations were also considered in selecting sample foundations if their mission statements included helping Taiwan HEIs develop and improve or not.

130

In 2002, the Himalaya Foundation and other philanthropic organizations

cooperated to publish a survey of Taiwan’s foundation market and development, namely

the Directory of 300 Major Foundations in Taiwan. As in the selection of sample

corporations, the researcher used it as the guideline for selecting sample foundations from

the MoI database. Based on this information on Taiwanese foundations, the researcher

focused on culture- and education-oriented foundations as the targeted research samples

because their missions and goals make them more inclined to fund PHEIs; the other

foundations by contrast usually support specific individuals, groups, or organizations.

In the initial research proposal, the researcher planned to contact several colleges

that received donations from foundations in order to connect to their donors, but college

personnel were unwilling to reach out to the donors because of the schools’ prohibitions

on releasing proprietary information. It was, therefore, necessary to change sample-

seeking strategies. The researcher then contacted the foundations where his NSF

interview participants worked. Through trial-and-error two solutions to collect data regarding for the NSF were developed. One solution was to mail the NSF package to several hundred foundations. The other solution was to participate in Taiwanese foundation activities to get to know foundation personnel.

The first solution involved two steps. One was to have a powerful recommendation letter from a top government administrator in the fields of culture and welfare in Taiwan. The other step was to look for and to collect as many foundation lists as possible from central government agencies, such as the MoI, the MoE, the MoEA, and local government entities. Each government unit was in charge of specific-function

131

foundations and provided a book listing them. The combined list totaled almost 3,000

foundations. The researcher divided the entire list into four endowment-resource categories: community, corporate, government, and scholastic. Because of limited time and money, each category was narrowed down to 200 foundations as prospective NSF participants; therefore, 800 foundations were selected for the study. The researcher mailed the NSF with the aforementioned recommendation letter. After a couple of days,

the researcher followed up by phone to make sure that designated recipients had received

the NSF package and to encourage them to complete the survey. On average, four follow- ups were necessary to convince a representative from each foundation on the list to participate in the study. The other solution to secure foundation participants was to join foundation assembly activities and training courses.

By participating in these activities, the researcher acquainted himself with many foundation workers or chief executives and exchanged business cards. Afterward, the researcher chose to contact new acquaintances for the purpose of a face-to-face meeting to complete the NSF or conduct a research interview. As a result, the researcher obtained

130 total responses from these two solutions, but only 99 of the 130 were usable for this study. The first solution produced 55 foundation participants to complete the NSF; the second solution resulted in 44 viable foundation samples. To account for the 31 nonviable samples, many of the individuals who received them communicated to the researcher that they could not accept the invitation to complete the NSF because they doubted their qualifications. Consequently, 99 NSF samples were viable.

132

Treatment of the Data

Research questions

Surveys

NSH NSC NSF (Appendix A&B) (Appendix C&D) (Appendix E&F)

57 PHEIs 151 Corporations 99 Foundations

Descriptive for Q1 to Q4

Interview Samples Selection

Interviews 25 Corporations 21 Foundations

Inductions for Q5 from Interview analysis for Q2 to Q4 Inductions for Q5 from Companies Foundations

Figure 3.1 Research conducting process and question-to-solution procedure

The raw data generated during the interviews were analyzed through data managing, reading/memoing, reflecting, describing the context and participants, classifying, and interpreting (Gay & Airasian, 2003). Data managing began with a sample search. For each potential sample on the search list, a specific file consisting of field notes, memos, contact records (e-mail communication and telephone conversation), and the other documents was compiled. After a sample interview was conducted, interview records, memos, and questionnaires were added to the file. The researcher transcribed each interview tape in Mandarin. Based on the transcription, he classified interview data by means of “a process of breaking down data into smaller units, determining their import, and putting the pertinent units together in a more general, interpreted form” (Gay

& Airasian, p. 232). Next the researcher diagrammed the category levels and organized each interview.

133

Data Collection and Analysis for Research Question 1 (Q1)

For Q1—“What kind(s) of groups in Taiwan are most inclined to give funds to

PHEIs in Taiwan?”—the researcher intended to find the answer to this question from three resources: corporations, foundations, and PHEIs. In order to obtain perspectives from personnel at these three entities, the researcher surveyed companies, foundations, and PHEIs online and via postal mail. On the NSC13 and 14 were intended to ascertain whether or not Taiwanese companies ever donated to PHEIs in Yes/No question form.

The researcher analyzed the responses from the Internet and the mailed versions of the

NSC using SPSS software in order to obtain descriptive statistics about the responses to the NSC online survey and, thus, to know which categories of industries and organizations were prone to donate to PHEIs.

The NSH was designed to gain information from FAs at PHEIs. A goal of this study was to determine which corporations and foundations had donated to them

(questions number 5 [NSH5] and 6 [NSH6]). The researcher ascertained which categories of industries in Taiwan were inclined to give money to PHEIs from the perspective of

FAs’ experience and intuition (question number 3 [NSH3] and number 4 [NSH4]). NSH packages were mailed to all 57 PHEIs in Taiwan. Responses by FAs at PHEIs to NSH5 and NSH6 were scrutinized to understand which corporations and foundations had already donated to them. The purpose of NSH2 was to elicit PHEI FAs’ responses to the

1996 self-sufficiency policy using a Likert scale. The researcher analyzed feedback and responses to obtain descriptive statistics through the SPSS software program and a qualitative data analysis by coding the interviews. The NSH responses and feedback

134

provided potential corporate or foundation interview samples; in fact, very few

participants were interviewed.

By administering the NSF, the researcher secured answers to Q1 from foundation personnel. A Yes or No question, NSF15 and 16 asked foundation people in charge of fund distribution to PHEIs whether or not to did give funds or plan to give funds to

PHEIs. With the help of information available from the MoI and the MoE in Taiwan, the researcher mailed NSF questionnaires to 800 random representative samples in the four foundation classifications. Meanwhile, the questionnaire was mailed to specific foundations after making certain they would complete this survey. The researcher anatomized the first-hand data responses from the online survey and the mailed the NSF with a whole package. This demonstrated descriptive statistical information regarding foundation donations to PHEIs to understand which categories of foundation organizations had an affinity for donating to PHEIs.

Data Collection and Analysis for Research Question 2 (Q2)

As for Q2—“What incentives motivate these groups to give funds to PHEIs in

Taiwan?”— this study used mixed methodology to collect and analyze data from the

NSC, NSH, NSF and phenomenological interviews. In other words, the questionnaires and interviews were the primary methods of data collection for Q2. After analyzing the responses and feedback from the NSH, the researcher listed potential or possible interview participants and contacted them by phone or in person in order to determine their willingness to be interviewed. The researcher located 26 interview participants at

Taiwanese corporations and 21 at foundations in Taiwan. Hence, the total number of

135 samples was 47 cases for the interview investigation. The researcher developed Key

Interview Questions (KIQ) (Appendix G) based on the literature review in this study, and they served as the guideline for interviewing corporate and foundations participants and as a bridge between research questions and the findings. Nine key questions served as the basis for research questions 2 through 5.

Six KIQs (KIQ1 through KIQ6) related to the concepts and contents of Q2. KIQ1 focused on investigating general donation incentives to PHEIs. Through IKQ1 this research uncovered specific incentives except for the five incentives discussed in chapter

2 of this research. KIQ2 concentrated on the concept of marketing incentives in the corporate or foundation donation cases. The researcher explored such an incentive in detail if interview participants mentioned it in KIQ1 or tested such an incentive whether or not it existed in their decision making even if they did not mention it in KIQ1. Similar logic and conceptualization of the other four donation incentives were discussed in chapter 2. KIQ3 dealt with tax saving incentives, KIQ4 dealt with social currency incentives, KIQ5 dealt with public relation incentives, and KIQ6 dealt with social responsibility incentives. The researcher transcribed, coded, and figured out themes and subthemes from each recorded interview tape. As for quantitative methods used to answer Q2, the researcher still used the NSC and NSF as analytic instruments and data collection media. The first questions on the NSC and NSF investigated the incentives or motivations behind corporate or foundation contributions to PHEIs. When survey participants checked or circled numbers on the Likert scale to express the degree of their agreement with each statement regarding their donations to PHEIs, the researcher used

136 the attitudinal rating analysis of the SPSS software program to analyze Q2. In addition, survey participants also expressed answers beyond the five basic motivations behind corporate and foundation donations to a society in the open-ended question. This part was analyzed by qualitative research methods.

Data Collection and Analysis for Research Question 3 (Q3)

As for Q3—“How do these groups decide which PHEIs to fund?”—the researcher continued using similar research methods and logic (mixed methodology) and the processes and instruments (NSC, NSF, and KIQ) of data collection and analyses as used for solving Q2. As for the section of qualitative research methods, the seventh KIQ

(KIQ7) dealt with Q3 by the regular processes and steps of analyzing qualitative data. As for the quantitative research methods, the researcher designed the third through ninth questions on the NSC and the third through tenth questions on the NSF as the main survey questions (NSC3 through NSC9 and NSF3 through NSF10) to deal with Q3 by virtue of the SPSS software program and using the same treatment mentioned above for

Q3. (See Appendixes C & E)

Data Collection and Analysis for Research Question 4 (Q4)

As for Q4—“How has corporate and foundation giving to PHEIs changed since the 1996 PHEI endowment policy was instituted?”—the researcher continued the mixed methodology and used the same instruments (NSC, NSF, and KIQ). As for the aspect of qualitative research, the eighth KIQ (KIQ8) elaborated on Q4 by the common procedures of qualitative research. As for the facet of quantitative research in this study, the researcher developed the tenth survey question on the NSC (NSC10) using choices on a

137

Likert scale. The twelfth question on the NSF (NSF12) was open-ended and the Likert

scale was used to collect answers for Q4. The researcher performed a frequency analysis

with the SPSS software program to analyze the data collected in the answers with Likert

scales. In addition, the answers from the open-ended comments were scrutinized by

common analysis methods of qualitative research.

Data Collection and Analysis for Research Question 5 (Q5)

As for Q5—“What factors or variables influence the PHEI fundraising network in

Taiwan?”—the researcher used only the KIQ as the data collecting instrument. In other

words, the researcher adapted only the phenomenological interview methods to approach

Q5 in the last interview question of the KIQ (KIQ9). In addition the researcher referred to findings from Q1 through Q4 to induce or deduce the possible factors or variables in the relationship between corporate and foundation contributions and fundraising by PHEIs in

Taiwan.

Limitations

The first limitation of this study derived from the design and structure of the questionnaire and the interview protocol, which precluded a thorough display of the incentives and perspectives of corporate and foundation giving to PHEIs in Taiwan because the cultural factors, including national and organizational cultures, mattered in this study and also influenced the giving behaviors at corporations and foundations.

Sometimes these cultural factors surpassed the capabilities of the research design. For example, cultural differences between the United States and Taiwan may have affected the structure of the questionnaire and interview protocol because these research

138

instruments were theoretically based upon American fundraising research and culture.

Taiwanese personnel at corporations and foundations perhaps revealed views and

perspectives different from American culture, especially with regard to philanthropic

giving to public schools. This cultural difference obviously exists, so the researcher

designed a questionnaire and an interview protocol that theoretically matched Taiwanese

culture. The researcher initially applied a U. S. model of fundraising culture as the

fundamental core of this study and then adjusted the American theoretic structure in order

to find a more suitable model for Taiwanese culture. In other words, because this study

accounted for only general concepts and perspectives of Taiwanese entrepreneurs and

foundation executives regarding PHEIs in Taiwan, future studies related to this topic will

necessarily entail specific objective questionnaires capable of eliciting concepts or

theories underlying more or all transactions or activities in a specific industry.

The second limitation is limited investigated sample size. The second limitation

derived from three factors: lack of a budget for a larger number of interviews, restricted

time for data collection, and limited useful outreach. The third limitation— unrepresentative samples—occurred because the 25 business participants did not represent all kinds of businesses and industries in Taiwan nor did the 21 foundation participants represent all types of foundations in Taiwan. At best, they partially represented Taiwanese organizations. The fourth limitation—brief duration of observation—derived from time constraints during data collection; this limitation prevented the researcher from observing or following a donation case thoroughly. In addition, the focus of this study was not a culture subject. The researcher studied some

139 organizations’ educational donation “behaviors or decisions,” not a culture; besides, each participant spent only 30 minutes to one hour replying to interview questions, insufficient time to conduct a thorough interview. The fifth limitation—superficial interview questions—made the use of the case study as the qualitative instrument impossible because the case study approach requires in-depth investigations into several cases, but this study used only 10 general interview questions, such as “What reasons made your company donate to one national college?” Hence, this design of interview questions, superficial not in-depth, is the fourth limitation of this study.

The last limitation of this research derives from its basis in the qualitative approach; thus, generalizability beyond Taiwan is impossible. Despite such a limitation this research may still contribute to the explanation of the importance of PHEI fundraising in Taiwan by connecting higher education and private sectors with corporate and foundation giving to PHEIs. In addition this research will help higher education fundraisers or developmental officers understand corporate and foundation giving incentives, to know the general processes or patterns of corporate decision making surrounding a school donation, and to become familiar with the interaction and relationship between corporations or foundations and PHEIs in Taiwan.

Chapter Summary

In the literature review, this study used American theoretical fundraising research methods and circumstances as a basic model to elucidate corporate and foundation giving to the PHEI fundraising industry in Taiwan and the inherent spirit of building PHEI fundraising relationships with corporate and foundation donations. In order to understand

140

the application value of American fundraising theories in Taiwan and the connection of the U. S. corporate and foundation giving model to Taiwanese corporate and foundation giving, the researcher applied this knowledge and those models to explore the network of public higher education with the private sector and Taiwanese corporations and businesses as well as with the third sector—Taiwanese foundations. This research design provided one means to examine the relationship between PHEI fundraising and corporate and foundation giving.

CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Introduction

This research examined interactions of corporations and foundation with PHEIs

concerning their decisions about making donations to PHEIs. In general, the study shows

the difference in motivation of Taiwanese corporations and foundations to fund PHEIs.

The researcher intended the results of this study to facilitate successful fundraising at

Taiwan’s PHEIs in the future.

This chapter contains the data analyses and findings for the study and follows an

organizational plan based on the research questions and answers given by the

participants. The first major section answered the first research question with an analysis

of the data collected from the National Survey of Higher Education Institutions (NSH). In

addition, the NSH survey revealed factors that have influenced past PHEI fundraising

efforts and their results. The second major section, divided into two parts, analyzed

participants’ answers to the remaining research questions—2 through 5—first

quantitatively, then qualitatively. Two surveys, the National Survey of Corporations

(NSC) and the National Survey of Foundations (NSF), were the data-collection

instruments for the quantitative analysis, in which research questions 2 through 5 were

answered by reporting statistical descriptions. Interviews with 48 top administrators at corporations and foundations in Taiwan provided the data for the section in which research questions 2 to 5 were answered by qualitative analysis.

141

142

Demographics of PHEIs Surveyed

According to resources available from the Ministry of Education (MoE), 57

PHEIs operated in Taiwan at the time of this study. Primary FAs were contacted to answer the questions on the NSH. At least one individual in charge of raising funds at each PHEI completed the NSH form. The researcher gained access to FAs at PHEIs in three ways: (a) participating in PHEI FAs’ conferences or activities, (b) networking to meet PHEI FAs, and (c) making calls to FAs. Ultimately, the researcher received 35 usable NSH forms from FAs surveyed at the 57 PHEIs. The NSH included two sections for investigating FAs at PHEIs. One focused on campus FAs’ responses and attitudes toward Taiwan’s 1996 self-sufficiency policy encouraging all PHEIs to find economic support from private organizations. The other related to fund-raising consequences and outcomes at these higher education institutions during the last 10 years.

Age of the Institution

Theoretically, universities with longer histories raise funds from society more easily than ones with shorter histories (Purcell, 2001). Thus, the length of time the PHEIs were in operation influenced their fundraising consequences and performances. Of the 35 samples, 17 PHEIs had been open more than 60 years and 18 fewer than 60 years.

Size of fund-raising staffs

The 35 NSH samples were analyzed with the Statistical Package for the Social

Science (SPSS), and the results show that full-time and part-time professional FAs at each PHEI are in charge of securing contributions. Many devote themselves to full-time professional work, raising as much money as they can. In contrast, part-time personnel

143

for fundraising are temporarily employed for special fund-raising projects to benefit the

institutions. Of the 35 PHEIs surveyed in Taiwan, only 11 (31.4%) had full-time professional employees to perform fund-raising tasks (see Table 4.1). The other 24 institutions (68.6 %) in the sample did not have full-time professionals to take charge of raising funds. Thus, few of the sampled PHEIs allocated significant human resources to this task. Of the 11 PHEIs employing professionals, only one university employed more than 2 professional fundraisers.

Table 4.1 Distribution of Full-Time Professional Fund-Raising Administrators (FAs) Number of FAs Number of PHEIs None 24 1 8 2 2 More than 2 1

By contrast, some PHEIs created part-time positions for individuals to raise funds for their universities. Twenty-three of the 35 universities responding (65.7%) supported

part-time positions for fundraising (see Table 4.2). As for part-time employees, five

universities had more than three positions for individuals charged with raising funds.

These numbers reveal an ironic phenomenon: Administrators at the majority of

Taiwanese PHEIs have understood the importance of self-fundraising for years but

created few positions designed for doing so. According to the data above, only one PHEI

demonstrated the importance of self-fundraising perhaps because at the time of this writing, Taiwanese PHEIs faced two limitations: Taiwan’s current University Act and

their own budget allocations. The University Act regulated affairs at PHEIs, including the

hiring of personnel and governance, making the hiring of professional FAs difficult under

144 the rigid regulations. Likewise, PHEI budget allocations were required to follow

Taiwan’s Budget Act because each PHEI was regarded as a government organization; consequently, many administrators at PHEIs typically asked faculty or other employees to serve in part-time fundraising positions instead of hiring full-time professionals.

Table 4.2 Distribution of Part-Time Professional Fundraising Administrators (FAs) Number of FAs Numbers of PHEIs None 12 1 10 2 8 More than 2 5

Response to Research Question 1—In Taiwan, What Kinds of Groups Are Most Inclined

to Give Funds to PHEIs?

Findings Derived From the National Survey of Public Higher Education Institutions

(NSH)

Summary of Findings

Traditional and technological manufacturers, financial institutions and insurance companies, and construction companies in Taiwan were the top three groups most inclined to donate funds to PHEIs according to a quantitative analysis of answers given on the NSH survey. The qualitative open-ended investigation derived from the NSH indicates that the top two groups were the same as the ones revealed in the quantitative findings; however, in third place among the groups most inclined to donate to PHEIs were companies devoted to professional and technological services.

145

Data Analyses

To answer the research questions, the researcher sent the National Survey of

Higher Education (NSH) to all PHEIs in Taiwan to investigate the opinions of their

fundraising administrators (FAs). This survey was designed to gain information on PHEI

FAs’ situations, including the number of full-time and part-time FAs serving their PHEI,

their attitudes toward Taiwan’s 1996 self-sufficiency policy for PHEIs, what categories

of Taiwanese business and industries had donated in the past and would likely donate to

them in the future, and their lists of corporations and foundations donating to their PHEIs

at the time of this study. The data analysis began with the demographics of Taiwan’s

PHEIs as revealed by the NSH.

Analyzing all usable samples of the NSH revealed that 29 of the 35 or 87.5% of the PHEIs received business or corporate donations and 6 had not (Table 4.3). This

percentage indicates not only that many Taiwanese PHEIs have acted on the 1996 self-

fundraising policy but also that many companies, regardless of whether they are

corporate groups or small to mid-sized private firms, have gradually contributed financial

support to higher education in Taiwan in many ways. By contrast, donations from

Taiwanese foundations to PHEIs occurred less often among the 35 PHEIs in this study.

Only 25 of the 35 or 71.4% received donations from Taiwanese foundations. None of the

35 PHEIs had professionals in charge of raising funds specifically from foundations.

Table 4.3 Corporations and Foundations Donating to National Universities in Taiwan in 2008 PHEI participants (N=35) Corporations Foundations Yes, donated to public colleges 29 25 No, not yet donated to public colleges 6 10

146

Types of Businesses Likely to Donate to PHEIs

The statistical analysis of NSH data that follows covers types of businesses, as

classified by Taiwan’s Ministry of Economy Affairs (MoEA), likely to donate to PHEIs.

According to answers given to Q3 on the NSH—Since 1996 what kinds of businesses and industries have donated to the PHEI where you work now?—the top five businesses or industries that donated to PHEIs were (a) traditional and technological manufacturers

(68.6% of all NSH participants), (b) construction companies (42.9%), (c) financial institutions and insurance companies (54.3%), (d) educational services (37.1%), and (e) health and social welfare services (37.1%) (See Table 4.4).

Table 4.4 Businesses and Industries Donating to National Colleges in Taiwan in 2008 35 national university participants Classification of Businesses and Industries Current Future No Yes Rank No Yes Rank Traditional and technological manufacturing 11 24 1 18 17 1 Finance or insurance 16 19 2 21 14 3 Building construction 20 15 3 20 15 2 Educational services 22 13 4 21 14 5 Medical, health, and social welfare services 22 13 4 22 13 4 Culture, physical, and leisure services 24 11 5 21 14 3 Retail or wholesale trade 26 9 6 24 11 5 Transportation or communication 27 8 7 27 8 6 Professional scientific/technological services 28 7 8 21 14 5 Hotels or restaurants 29 6 9 24 11 5 Farm, forest, fishing, or cattle 30 5 10 28 7 7 Water, electricity, or gas supply 31 4 11 27 8 6 Real estate and leasing 32 3 12 27 8 6 Mining or quarrying 33 2 13 28 7 7

Interestingly, for future reference according to the NSH question 4—In the future

what kinds of businesses and industries are likely to donate to the PHEI for which you now work?— the top five industries or businesses predicted to donate in the future are (a) traditional and technological manufacturers (49.6%), (b) construction companies

147

(42.9%), (c) financial institutions and insurance companies (40%), (d) cultural, physical,

and leisure services (40%), and (e) health and social welfare services (37.1%). Thirty five

PHEI FAs were asked to respond yes or no to each of the Taiwanese businesses or industries donating to PHEIs through their professional fundraising experiences in the

NSH survey. Their response “Yes” to each business or industry ranked for currently and the future in Table 4.4.

The ranking comparison for the past and the future assists readers in understanding which businesses and industries may change their development trends from this point forward. For example, according to PHEI FAs’ predictions on the NSH survey, educational services may decrease their tendency to donate; but cultural, physical, and/or leisure services may increase their roles in the future. Based on the college FAs’ experiences and predictions, another conclusion is that these numbers can help PHEI FAs understand which organizational classifications, such manufacturing and construction, have greater potential to donate to their institutions. PHEI FAs can put this information to use as they enact fundraising plans, fully understanding which organizations are inclined to donate to PHEIs.

Attitudes towards the 1996 Self-Sufficiency Policy for PHEIs

The last section of statistical analysis of NSH data regards PHEI FAs’ opinions about the government policy encouraging the self-sufficiency of all PHEIs. As shown in

Table 4.5, the majority of PHEI FAs in Taiwan maintained a neutral position on this

PHEI self-sufficiency policy; therefore, many of them answered, “No comment.” The second question on the NSH survey —As a PHEI FA what do you think about Taiwan’s

148

1996 PHEI self-sufficiency policy?— was divided into four segments. The first segment

of this question was designed to determine whether or not PHEI FAs thought that this

policy has had an impact on Taiwanese businesses and industries. Forty percent of

respondents to the NSH survey replied “no comment”; however, 40% of PHEI FAs agreed that this policy has influenced Taiwanese business and industry. The 40% who responded “no comment” revealed that many PHEI FAs were unwilling to assess such a governmental policy because they must follow that policy and did not want to make trouble for themselves by critiquing government policy. The following comment represents the general reluctance of government administrators toward criticizing government policies: “All [we] had to do was follow orders and everything would be fine” (Chung, 2000). The latter 40% disclosed the extent to which college FAs have influenced Taiwanese businesses and industries. This number indicates that more and more companies, especially corporate groups, have developed ideas to help higher education in Taiwan, recognizing their responsibility to donate economic resources or financial capital after interaction with and encouragement from PHEI FAs.

Table 4.5 PHEI FAs’ Opinions of the PHEI Self-Sufficiency Policy (N=35) PHEI participants a* b* c* d* Totally Agree 5 1 3 2 Agree 9 3 9 23 No Comment 14 19 16 7 Disagree 7 12 7 3 Totally Disagree 0 0 0 0 * In NSH, the second question regarding PHEI self-sufficiency policy has four sub-questions: a, b, c, and d.

The second segment of the second NSH question— As a PHEI FA what do you

think about Taiwan’s 1996 PHEI self-sufficiency policy?—was intended to elicit the

149 perspectives of PHEI FAs on the effect of this governmental mandate on corporations.

Thirty-five respondents, that is 54%, answered “no comment”; however, 31.4% of the

FAs agreed that Taiwanese companies could have been influenced in their profit allocation decisions by the self-sufficiency policy. Moreover, in the third segment of the second question on the NSH survey, 34.3 % of the participants agreed that, thus far, this policy has had drawbacks; but 45.7 % of the same respondents did not express their opinions about the following statement: “This policy is not a good one.” Finally, in the last segment of the second question on the NSH survey, the majority of these survey participants (71.4%) unanimously agreed that from now on PHEIs will be forced to raise funds from outside the campus community. Thus, Taiwan’s PHEI have entered the era of fundraising.

Statistical Analysis of the NSH Open-Ended Questions Asked of Corporate and

Foundation Donors to PHEIs

On the NSH, representatives of 20 PHEIs answered question 5: Please list companies that donated to the PHEI you serve. The number of companies donating to

PHEIs was 86. This study classified each company mentioned in answer to question 5 on the NSH in accordance with the Department of Economic Affairs in Taiwan. Table 4.6 below shows the number of companies in each kind of business or industry that donated to PHEIs. Traditional and technological manufacturing (35), finance or insurance (10), and professional science and technological services (8) are the businesses and industries that donated to PHEI the most frequent. Only 15 PHEIs completed NSH question 6. A total of 48 foundations donated to PHEIs. Table 4.7 presents how many of each kind of

150 foundation donated to PHEIs as indicated by the NSH investigation. The top five kinds of foundations donating to PHEIs were education and cultural foundations (21), cultural foundations (5), memorial foundations (5), religious foundations (3), and art foundations

(3). In answer to the first research question—In Taiwan, what kinds of groups are most inclined to give funds to PHEI?— the statistical investigation of the NSH showed that

Taiwan’s businesses, as classified by the MoE, most inclined to give funds to PHEIs were traditional and technological manufacturers, companies devoted to finance and insurance, and the construction trades (Table 4.4); the NSH investigation allowed the researcher to qualitatively conclude that traditional and technological manufacturing, finance and insurance, and professional science and technological services were most inclined to donate to PHEIs (Table 4.6).

Table 4.6 Categorization of Answers to Open-Ended Question 5 on the NSH (N = 86) Number of companies donating Businesses and Industries in Taiwan to PHEIs Traditional and technological manufacturing 35 Finance or insurance 10 Professional scientific/technological services 8 Building construction 6 Culture, physical, and leisure services 4 Retail or wholesale trade 4 Transportation or communication 4 Educational services 3 Farm, forest, fishing, or cattle 3 Mining or quarrying 3 Medical, health, and social welfare services 2 Hotels or restaurants 2 Water, electricity, or gas supply 1 Real estate and leasing 1 Insurance education foundations 1 Research development foundations 1

The results of the NSH qualitatively showed that Taiwan’s foundations, as classified by the MoI, MoE, and MoEA, most inclined to give funds to PHEIs are

151

educational and cultural foundations, cultural foundations, and memorial foundations

(Table 4.7). Prior to 1995, Taiwan’s government allowed foundations to serve education

and culture so that at that time many foundations named by education and cultural

foundations. After 1995, Taiwan’s government changed this policy only to name one

specific field, education or culture, as foundations’ titles.

Table 4.7 Categorization of Answers to Open-Ended Question 6 on the NSH (N=48) Kinds of Taiwanese foundations Number of foundations donating to PHEIs Education and cultural foundations 21 Cultural foundations 5 Memorial foundations 5 Religion foundations 3 Art foundations 3 Charity foundations 2 Education foundations 2 Social group foundation 2 Music foundations 1 Public welfare foundations 1 Computer education foundations 1

The investigation conducted via the NSH not only provided the answer to the first

research question above but also connected the performance of PHEI fundraising and the

PHEI human resources that contribute to raising funds, allowing the researcher to pose

the following research question: In Taiwan’s PHEIs, what relationship exists between the performance of PHEI fund-raising and these institutions’ human resources that contributes to raising funds? The raw data from the NSH were analyzed in order to draw an approximate picture of PHEI fundraising in Taiwan. Some of these 35 PHEIs employed people in specific positions to raise funds. A question associated with this study is as follows: In Taiwan’s PHEIs, what relationship exists between performance of

PHEI fundraising and these universities’ human resources that contributes to raising

152

funds? A statistical analysis of those relationships appears in Table 4.8 as follows: The

Pearson correlation between professional fund-raising positions and business donations

cases is 0.156 (N=35, p=.37 > .05); likewise, the correlation of part-time positions to business donations is 0.062 (N=35, p=.721 > .05). That is, the relationship between the full-time professional or part-time positions and business/industry donations is positive but not significant. For foundation donations, the correlation between professional positions to raise funds and foundation donations is 0.299(N=35, p=.081 > .05); the correlation of part-time positions and foundation donations is 0.293 (N=35, p=.087 >

.05).

Table 4.8 Spearman's Rho Correlation Coefficiency for FAs and Donations from Corporations and Foundations PHEI participants Variables Corporate donations Foundation donations R Sig.(2-tailed) R Sig.(2-tailed) Full-time fund-raising positions 0.156 0.370 0.299 0.081 Part-time fund-raising positions 0.062 0.721 0.293 0.087

Similarly, the relationship between the professional or part-time positions and foundation donations is positive but not significant. These numbers demonstrate that when comparing professional and part-time fund-raising performance for Taiwanese national colleges, people in professional positions yield better results than those in part- time positions. Moreover, better performance will occur if a person in a new position in charge of raising funds concentrates on Taiwanese foundations instead of businesses or industries because Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients between both fund-raising positions and foundation donations are greater than between both positions and corporate

153 donations. It should be noted, however, that this statement lacks statistical significance due to the p value being slightly higher than the critical value (.05) (p = .08 > .05) (see

Table 4.8).

The NSH survey explored four independent variables (IVs) for each campus in order to determine which variables were significant to garnering donations from corporations and foundations. In Table 4.9, the four IVs are the number of years the

PHEIs have been in operation, the number of full-time fund-raising positions, the number of part-time fundraising positions, and the educational types of national universities as classified by Taiwan’s Ministry of Education (MoE). The two dependent variables

(DVs), corporation and foundation donations, were labeled “1” when the university received funding by 2007 and “0” when they did not receive funds by this time. The researcher collected 35 usable NSHs from all of Taiwan’s 57 PHEIs. Information on the remaining 22 PHEIs’ necessary IVs and DVs as of 2008 were collected through Internet sources for this study. The reasons for doing so were (a) the 35 samples of NSH were too insignificant to infer the relationship between four IVs and two DVs, and the expansion of sample sizes was one solution to explore the relationship; and (b) many corporate and foundation donations in Taiwan were given to these 57 PHEIs, so it was essential to collect IVs and DVs data from all PHEIs in Taiwan.

The combination of 35 NSHs and the remaining 22 PHEIs from online searching yielded information on all Taiwanese national universities except for Taiwan’s defense system schools. In other words, the 57 NSH samples were the basis for the basic fundraising performances of PHEIs in Taiwan. Measuring campus fundraising

154

performance was difficult. This researcher attempted to find what quantitative variables

influence PHEI fundraising, such as the following four IVs.

Table 4.9 Independent Variables (IV) Coding List Independent Variables (IV) Label Definition Coding How many years in operation College’s years in operation IV1 Fund-raising administrators (FAs) None FA 0 one FA 1 two FAs 2 Full-time fund-raising positions IV2 three or more FAs 3 Fund-raising administrators (FAs) zero FA 0 one FA 1 Part-time fund-raising positions IV3 two FAs 2 three or more FAs 3 University types Comprehensive university 1 PHEI classification types IV4 Technological and vocational university 2 Normal university 3

The first IV, the number of years the PHEI has been in operation (IV1), has been

accepted as an influential factor for corporate and foundation donations to higher

education (Orkodashvili, 2007), but in Taiwan no statistical information was available to discuss the correlation between a PHEI’s years in operation and fund-raising

performance. This researcher attempted to explore the relationship between this IV and

public university fund-raising performance. The second IV is the number of full-time

fund-raising positions (IV2), that is, how many people in professional positions were in

charge of finding campus financial resources. This research categorized none, one, two,

and three or more full-time positions as 0, 1, 2, and 3 respectively. For the third IV, the

number of part-time fund-raising positions (IV3), the researcher implemented a 0, 1, 2, or

155

3 coding scheme as with the second IV. The reason to study the third IV was that until

2007 few Taiwanese PHEIs had a full-time fund-raising position, but many of them had part-time fund-raising positions. The last IV is the college type (IV4) as defined by the

MoE in Taiwan. In general, the three types of PHEIs are comprehensive research universities, technological and vocational universities, and normal universities. In this research, the numbers 1, 2, and 3 respectively represented these three types.

The section implemented the correlation research method. The data analysis depended on SPSS and also produced some results that appear in three tables regarding these four IVs and two DVs. Table 4.10 demonstrates these four variables in terms of statistics, including mean (M) and standard deviation (SD). Table 4.11 and Figure 4.1

display what correlations exist among all variables by the correlation coefficients. Table

4.12 shows a discriminant analysis of the data to draw a picture of the basic relationship in order to predict or explore what kinds of measurable variables directly or indirectly relate to the possible chance for a Taiwanese national college to receive corporate donations or foundation donations. As a result, this study produced positive statistical relationships between the number of full-time and part-time fundraising positions and whether or not the PHEIs received corporate and/or foundation donations (N=57,

Rc2=.262, p <.05.; Rc3= .339, p < .01; Rf2=.338, p <.05; Rf3= .453, p<.01). Negative

statistical relationships demonstrate a connection between the educational classification

types and whether or not universities obtained corporate and/or foundation donations

(N=57, Rc4= -.288, p <.05; Rf4=-.488, p <.01).

156

Table 4.10 shows an average duration of operation for Taiwanese PHEIs of 55

years in operation. The mean of full-time positions for 57 public universities in Taiwan was 0.54 positions. The average for part-time positions was 0.82 positions. These numbers show that most leaders of PHEIs in Taiwan prefer to hire part-time fundraisers instead of full-time professionals. The numbers, all less than one, also point out that fundraising positions in Taiwan’s PHEIs are not very popular or in demand.

Table 4.10 Means and Standard Deviations of Predictors and Criterion Variables Taiwan’s PHEIs Variables M SD Number of years PHEIs in operation 54.88 32.957 Full-time fund-raising positions 0.54 0.908 Part-time fund-raising positions 0.82 1.071 PHEI types 1.75 0.739 Corporate donations 0.67 0.476 Foundation donations 0.56 0.507

As for IV4, 24 comprehensive universities (42.1%) operate in Taiwan, 23

technological and vocational universities (40.5%), and 10 normal universities (17.5%).

The percentages indicate the comprehensive and technological and vocational

universities might be the primary types of PHEIs in Taiwan. In addition, according to the

higher education development blueprint provided by the MoE, normal schools may be

forced to change their original functions or merge with other comprehensive or

technological and vocational universities.

As for corporate and foundation donations indicated on the NSH survey, the

average of corporate donations was 0.67, relying on a binary scale (0 or 1); and 0.56, the

average for foundation donations. The likelihood of a corporate donation is higher than a

157

donation from a foundation. In other words Taiwanese firms have exhibited a greater

willingness or obligation to support higher education than foundations.

Table 4.11 represents the correlation among the six variables. The numbers in this

table express the correlation coefficients between each IV and each DV. For example,

fund-raising positions have positive relations with whether or not a PHEI receives

donations from Taiwanese corporations or foundations (N=57, Rc2= 0.262, p<.05; Rc3=

.339, p< .01; Rf2=.338, p<.05; Rf3= .453, p<.01). In other words, more fund-raising positions help a PHEI to obtain more funds from companies or foundations. However, in

Table 4.11, the two correlation coefficients for the third IV (0.339 and 0.453) are greater than the correlations for the second IV. This demonstrates that the performance of PHEI fund-raising professionals in Taiwan should be higher than part-time positions, but it was not. Therefore, full-time positions for public university fundraising require cultivation by fund-raising specialists’ research and development in order to improve the efficiency and

effectiveness of their fund-raising professionals.

Table 4.11 Correlation Coefficients between Fund-Raising and Donation Variables Corporate Donations Foundations Donations 1. Number of years PHEIs in operation 0.084 -0.110 2. Full-time fund-raising positions 0.262 * 0.338 * 3. Part-time fund-raising positions 0.339 ** 0.453 ** 4. PHEI types -0.288 * -0.490 ** * p<.05. **p<.01

The fourth variable has a negative relation because the correlation coefficients

between two kinds of donations and public university types are -0.288 (N=57, p <.05)

and -0.49 (N=57, p< .01). These two negative numbers mean that in Taiwan leaders at

158

comprehensive research PHEIs with coding 1 find it easier to raise funds from

corporations and foundations than technological and vocational PHEIs with coding 2;

likewise, technological and vocational PHEI are more likely to raise corporate or

foundation donations than normal PHEIs coded 3. According to Table 4.11, the

correlation coefficients between the first variable, number of years the PHEI has been in

operation, and corporate or foundation donations are very small, close to zero. In

addition, the p value between them is 0.477 higher than 0.05, critical value, so that

statistically IV1, the number of years the PHEI has been in operation, is not significant

for corporate or foundation donations to PHEIs in this research.

For further evidence that the IV2, IV3, and IV4 are relational with corporate or

foundation donations to PHEI, another statistical formula was necessary. Because the two

dependent variables come into “yes to donate” with coding 1 and “not to donate” with

coding 0, this researcher implemented a discriminant analysis in order to explore their

relationships. The reason to use the discriminant analysis is not only that the two

dependent variables belong to qualitative quality, yes (1) or not to donate (0), but also

that these three independent variables are quantitative qualities (Altman, 1988, p. 28).

Employing discriminant analysis by entering independents together, full-time and part-

time fund-raising positions and university types were the effective indicators for

corporate donations to PHEIs in Taiwan (Wilks’ lambda = .797, χ2 = 12.149, df = 3, and

p = .007< .01) (Table 4.12 ). Likewise, full-time and part-time fund-raising positions and

PHEI types were the effective indicators for foundation donations to PHEIs (Wilks’s lambda = .578, χ2 = 29.367, df = 3, and p< .000) (Table 4.12 below). In other words,

159 these three independent variables are significant to both corporate and foundation donations to PHEIs in Taiwan.

Table 4.12 Discriminant Analysis Outcomes All PHEI participants (N=57) Dependent variables Wilks' lambda Chi-square df Sig. Corporate donations 0.797 12.149 3 .007 Foundation donations 0.578 29.367 3 .000

IV3

(0.02, 0.86) (0.35, 0.007) (0.47, 0.000) (0.08, 0.54) DV1 IV1 (0.09, 0.47)

Note: (#, #) = (correlation coefficient, (-0.19, 0.15) P-value)

(0.63, 0.64) (-0.09, 0.50) (0.27, 0.04) (0.65, 0.00) (-0.33, 0.01)

IV2 DV2 (0.34, 0.01) (0.08, 0.55)

(-0.51, 0.000) (-0.22, 0.09) IV4

Figure 4.1 Statistical data between dependent and independent variables in NSH

Response to Research Question 2—What Incentives Motivate These Groups to Give

Funds to PHEIs in Taiwan?—Based on the NSC and NSF

Q2 was answered by analyzing the NSC and the NSF. The first half of this section concentrates on Taiwanese companies and opens with the findings of derived from the

NSC survey.

160

Findings Derived from the National Survey of Corporations

Sources of NSC Participants

Data was collected for the NSC with difficulty. In fact, the journey of data

collection for this study deviated from the research proposal. According to the proposal

the researcher planned to request PHEI FAs to specify their fund donors; however, all

except one politely rejected this request. Thus, in order to complete the NSC data

collection, some other strategies were necessary. For example, business and industrial

associations in Taiwan served as a good interaction platform from which to communicate

with corporations. Through the industrial associations, some corporations were requested

to complete the NSC. Because of these networks, conglomerates or larger companies

were identified to complete the NSC.

Second, members of some social entities, such as Rotary International, were also

willing to complete the survey; thus, NSC participant samples were successfully collected.

These NSC participants were employed at many small to mid-sized but successful companies. Third, telephone soliciting was a solution in making requests of large companies listed on the stock exchange in Taiwan. A few listed companies completed the

NSC. Fourth, joining some activities sponsored by the Ministry of Economic Affairs

(MoEA) was another solution to obtain viable NSCs. When the researcher exchanged business cards at activities held in cooperation with the MoEA and attended by delegates of some large companies, they usually agreed to participate in the NSC. These strategies yielded samples from 141 NSC participants.

161

Purposes of the NSC Investigation

The goal of the NSC was to explore incentives or reasons, communication,

purposes, strategies, focuses, interaction, and decision making surrounding corporate

donations to PHEIs. Table 4.14 displays the factors or variables in list form. Each factor includes several subfactors to measure corporate participants’ conception of the decision to donate to PHEIs. For instance, each factor, incentive, or reason has five variables: R1a,

R1b, R1c, R1d, and R1e. These symbols stand for corporation development, tax savings, pressure from competitors, public relations, and social responsibility. The first symbol, R, refers to the factor, the reasons or incentives to measure. The second symbol, 1, refers to the major question on the NSC. The third symbol, a, shows the subfactor or variable under a major question. Through the investigation of factors, the purpose of the NSC was to understand why and how Taiwanese entrepreneurs make their final decisions to donate to PHEIs.

Table 4.13 Demographics of Participants in the National Survey for Corporations Variables Classification Female Male Gender 47 94 A<40 40≤A<50 50≤A<60 60≤A<70 Age (A) 25 59 55 12 Jr. High Sr. High College Master Doctorate Education level 5 31 71 32 2 E<20 20≤E<100 100≤E<40 400≤E<1600 1600≤E<40000 Employees (E) 0 34 31 19 28 22 Years in operation H≤5 5

162

Demographics of NSC Participants

Table 4.13 shows partial background data for NSC samples. In terms of the first

variable, gender, twice the number of male managers (94) as female managers (47)

participated. The second variable was age (A). Participants’ ages ranged from 38 to 69

years of age. Education was the third variable. Many had attained bachelor’s degrees.

About one fourth of the entire sample (31/141) had earned high school diplomas. The

fourth variable was the number of employees in their companies. Thirty-four of the

companies employed fewer than 20 persons. Sixty five companies employed fewer than

100 workers as the majority employment in the NSC samples. The last variable in Table

4.13 was number of years NSC participants’ companies had been in operation, the

majority from 10 to 40 years.

Analysis of NSC Participant Variables

By using the SPSS, the researcher gathered the following statistical findings from

the NSC. Table 4.14 shows that only 64 participants of the 139 effective samples agreed

that corporate development, such as greater business market share, was a part of the

process when deciding to make donations to PHEIs. By contrast, 75 participants

disagreed with such an incentive (R1a). Interestingly, tax savings played an important

role in corporate donation decisions to PHEIs as shown by the 104 participants concerned

with this incentive. Table 4.14 also reveals that only 43 participants took business

competitors into consideration as part of their donation decision-making process; hence

business competition was not obviously significant. Next, social responsibility was apparently a critical incentive in the decision to donate to PHEIs for many companies

163

because 118 NSC participants agreed with this variable. Finally, the last incentive to test in the NSC—good public relations— played an important role for many businesses and industries in Taiwan in their decision to donate to a PHEI. The statistical analysis revealed that 111 companies considered good public relations in their decisions to donate to Taiwan’s PHEIs. Ranking donation incentives according to the highest rate of NSC participants’ agreement revealed social responsibility (85%) in first place; good public relations (80%), second; and tax saving (75%), third. The remaining incentives— company development and pressure from business competitors—played less significant roles in corporate decision making about donations to PHEIs in Taiwan.

Determining which college or university would benefit most from donation was the key point of question 2 on the NSC. Table 4.14 demonstrates that managers of the majority—80%—of Taiwanese corporations preferred active proposal applications for raising funds by public universities to other forms of communication, such as media

(50%) or intermediaries (71%) to learn about the needs of PHEIs. In order to evaluate

PHEIs as fund recipients, many corporate managers emphasized the PHEIs’ academic prestige (122/139), financial position (119/139), and teaching, research, and service quality (115/139) as the evaluation key items in making the decision to donate.

According to responses to the NSC, three kinds of purposes underlie corporate donations to PHEIs, as shown in Table 4.14: building relationships (98/139), reciprocity (93/139), and charity (99/139). These three categories received almost equal responses. The most popular responses to the question What strategies does your corporation use when donating to a PHEI? included active PHEI contact with corporate donors (110/138),

164

specific-purpose donations to fulfill needs of the PHEI (107/140), and group or

committee meetings for donation cases (102/140).

In answer to How does your company communicate with a PHEI during the

donation process?, frequent answers included formal documents and mail (74/141), joint

themed activities (71/141), phone calls and FAX (68/141), and formal conferences

(63/141). When asked, While interacting with a PHEI for the purpose of donating, on

what does your corporation focus?, corporate managers answered the following: PHEI

president’s leadership ability (103/140), PHEI involvement in social services and

charitable activities (116/140), PHEI president’s blueprint for governance (113/140),

opportunities to build cooperation between the corporation and PHEI (95/140), and community service performed by the PHEI (99/140).

As revealed by the NSC and shown in Table 4.14, 61% of the 141 participants were aware of the 1996 policy in which Taiwan’s government required that all PHEI gradually raise their own funds. When asked about their attitudes toward the policy, as shown in Table 4.14, the number of managers who agreed that it influenced many companies in their financial allocation (about 30%) was very similar in size to the groups that did not (about 32%), but managers of half these 141 companies (50.4%) maintained a positive attitude toward the policy, believing that it would encourage Taiwanese corporations to get involved in higher education.

165

Table 4.14 Results of the National Survey of Corporations (NSC) Variables/Factors Symbol Agree Disagree

Incentives or reasons R Corporate development R1a 64 75 Tax saving ** R1b 104 35 Pressure from competitors R1c 43 96 Social responsibility R1d 118 21 Public relations R1e 111 28 How to select PHEI recipients H Networking H2a 99 40 Press Media reports H2b 70 69 PHEI automatically communicate H2c 111 38 Evaluation V PHEI’s good academic reputation V3a 122 18 PHEI’s excellent alumni V3b 109 31 PHEI’s ranking V3c 72 68 PHEI’s vision, mission, and goals V3d 115 25 PHEI’s research/teaching/services V3e 119 21 PHEI’s financial position V3f 87 53 Purposes of donating to PHEIs P Building relationships** P4a 98 42 Reciprocity P4b 93 47 Charitable behavior P4c 99 40 Strategies S Long-term evaluation and assessment S5a 97 43 Long-term donation is better than short-term S5b 99 41 Specific donation fulfills PHEI needs S5c 107 33 Committee meeting for PHEI and corporations is S5d 102 38 better than individual meeting PHEI should actively communicate with S5e 110 28 corporations in seeking donations Methods of communication WC Telephone or FAX ** WC1 68 73 Email* WC2 51 90 Private meal meeting WC3 22 119 Formal documents WC4 74 67 Private meeting WC5 19 122 Formal meal meeting WC6 35 106 Formal meeting WC7 63 78 Joint theme activity WC8 71 70 Interactive focus I PHEI president’s leadership I7a 103 37 PHEI president’s fundraising performance I7b 72 68 PHEI involvement in community and charity I7c 116 24 PHEI president’s governance I7d 113 27 PHEI received other corporate donations* I7e 74 76 Relationship between PHEI administrators and I7f 82 58 corporations PHEI alumni work in the corporation I7g 59 81 Top corporate managers’ children study at PHEI* I7h 52 88

166

Corporation–university cooperation** I7i 95 45 Well-known people recommended PHEI to I7j 93 47 corporations* PHEI involvement in community activities I7k 99 41 PHEI need urgent financial support I7l 78 62 PHEI and corporations are in the same area I7m 93 47 Corporate leaders favor some areas or PHEI I7n 81 59 Who or which committee decides to donate to PHEI? A specific top manager decided 75 66 A specific committee decided 42 99 1996 higher education policy P Awareness of this policy** P10a 86 55 No Agree Disagree comment It influences your corporate management strategy P10b 42 44 55 It influences your corporate financial plans P10c 43 49 49 It influences your donation to PHEIs P10d 40 39 62 It influences corporate donations to PHEIs P10e 45 43 53 It enhances corporate concern for PHEIs P10f 71 28 42 It is supported by your corporation P10g 64 26 51 Reasons: Government promotion for this policy P10g1 78 12 51 needs improvement. Government should fix the tax regulations to P10g2 81 25 45 match this policy. Taiwanese tradition, like religious donation, not P10g3 58 32 51 for higher education.* Government should bear full responsibility for P10g4 57 31 53 higher education, not corporations. For corporate donations to PHEIs, what do you think T about the following three statements? 1. Government should enact tax reforms to fit this T11a 109 15 17 policy for corporations and foundations. 2. Entrepreneurs should bear social responsibility to T11b 99 17 25 donate to PHEIs. 3. All corporations should put charitable donations T11c 99 8 33 into the mission statements. Does your corporation currently include a statement on DV donating to social entities in your mission statement? Yes, we do.* DV1 35 106 Not yet, but we are working on it. DV2 20 121 No, we will consider it in the future.* DV3 51 90 No, it is not necessary to do so. DV4 27 114 Did your corporation donate to a PHEI? DTP 42 99 Does your corporation plan to donate to PHEI in the 50 91 future? **: p<.01, *: p<.05

As for the performance of the policy, 45% of the managers of 141 companies doubted the consequences of the policy for the following reasons: lack of promotion of governmental policy (55.3%), lack of tax-regulation supplements to support the policy

167

(57.4%), the traditional inclination toward donation to religious organizations instead of higher education (41.1%), and the belief that the Taiwan government should take full responsibility for Taiwan’s higher education (40.4%). Regarding this policy, managers of more than 70% of the 141 corporations agreed with the following three statements: (a)

Taiwan government should update tax regulations and financial systems in order to encourage Taiwanese companies and foundations to donate to Taiwanese PHEIs; (b) all entrepreneurs ought to bear social responsibility to support Taiwan’s higher education with financial and the other resources; and (c) they should consider charitable and educational donations in their vision or mission statements. To further explain the third statement, although 70.9% of participants agreed with that statement, only 45% of them had underwritten this statement in their vision and/or mission statements. Beyond these frequency descriptions of the NSC, these statistics indicate Taiwanese entrepreneurs’ conception and perceptions of this policy and their attitudes toward PHEI donations.

Statistical Analysis of the NSC: Correlation Analysis

This section explores correlation analyses for NSC participants’ background variables and their decisions regarding donations to PHEIs. According to the SPSS nonparametric correlation, because the variable DTP (donated to PHEI) in Table 4.14 belongs to dichotomous categories (yes or no), the background variables of these corporation participants, except gender and age, were significant (α= .05 level, 2-tailed) to DTP, including corporate participants’ highest level of education (N=141, ρ=.232, p<.006), NSC participants’ number of employees (N=136, ρ=.418, p<.000), their

168 established capital (N=133, ρ=.409, p<.000), and the number of years their companies have been in operation (N=137, ρ=.279, p<.001).

Table 4.15 Correlation of NSC Participants’ Background With DTP (Participants Donated to PHEI or not) Background Variables Correlation Coefficients Significant level (2- Number (ρ: Spearman’s rho) tailed): p of viable samples Gender .132 .12 141 Age -.045 .599 141 Education .232 .006** 141 Employees .418 .000** 136 Established capital .409 .000** 133 Years in operation .279 .001** 137 * p<.05, ** p<.01

Similar to the foregoing section, this part analyzed the correlation relationship for other variables in Table 4.15 and NSC participants’ decisions to donate to PHEI (Yes/No).

The other variables were also analyzed by the SPSS nonparametric correlation. Table

4.16 demonstrates the related information in detail as follows. Ten factors covered 62 subvariables on the NSC; however, 12 subvariables were significant to DTP, and they came from 6 factors. Therefore, among incentive or reason variables (R) cited by the 141

NSC participants in this study, only tax savings (R1b) was significant (N=141, ρ=.271, p=.001< α =.05) to DTP. As for the purpose factor (P), only building relationships (P4a) was significant (N=141, ρ=.31, p=.000< α =.05). As for ways of communication (WC), telephone or FAX (WC1) and email (WC2) were significant (N=141, ρ=.271, p=.001< α

=.05; N=141, ρ=-.187, p=.026< α =.05) to DTP.

169

Table 4.16 NSC Participants’ Variables Correlated with the DTP (N=141) Correlation Coefficients Significance level (2-tailed): p Variables (ρ: Spearman’s rho) R1b** .271 .001 P4a** -.31 .000 WC1** .271 .001 WC2* .187 .026 I7e* .172 .042 I7h* .194 .021 I7i** -.219 .009 I7j* -.184 .029 P10a* .267 .001 P10g3* .166 .049 DV1* .200 .017 DV3* -.168 .047 **: p<.01, *: p<.05

As for interactive focus (I), several subvariables were significant to DTP,

including whether or not PHEIs received other corporate donations (I7e) (N=141, ρ=.172,

p=.042<α=.05), whether or not the children of participants’ top managers studied at the

PHEI (I7h) (N=141, ρ=.194, p=.02< α =.051), corporation–university cooperation (I7i)

(N=141, ρ=-.219, p=.009< α =.05), and whether or not well-known people recommended the PHEI to corporations (I7j) (N=141, ρ=-.184, p=.029< α =.05). As for policy factor,

two subvariables were significant to DTP, including awareness of this policy (P10a)

(N=141, ρ=.267, p=.001< α =.05) and Taiwanese tradition (P10g3) (N=141, ρ=.166,

p=.049 < α =.05). As for DV factor (Table 4.14), two subvariables were significant to

DTP: DV12a (N=141, ρ=.2, p= .017< α = .05) and DV12c (N=141, ρ=-.168, p=.047< α

=.05).

Discriminant Analysis of the NSC

Three conditions distinguished the differences in discriminating ability regarding

NSC participants’ willingness (Yes/No) to donate to PHEIs. The first condition was to

170

analyze NSC participants’ significant background variables. The statistical outcome of

this condition displays as follows. The four background variables had discriminant ability

for DTP because this condition’s p value was .003 smaller than α= .05, but its Wilks’

lambda was high (.881), and its canonical correlation was low (.345).

The second condition was to test other significant variables in the NSC samples.

This consequence showed that the second condition also had discriminant ability because

of its p value of .000; its Wilk’s Lambda was .636 lower than that of the first condition,

and its canonical correlation was .604 higher than that of the first condition. Thus, the

second condition had more discriminant ability for DTP than the first condition. Next was

to analyze the third condition, that is, the combination of the first and the second

conditions. Its result demonstrated that the third condition had the best discriminant

ability to explain NSC participants’ decision making regarding donations to PHEIs because its p value was .000 and its Wilks’ lambda was .570 lower than those of the first and the second conditions and its canonical correlation was .655 higher than those of the first and second conditions. For detailed information about NSC discriminant analyses

(see Table 4.17).

Table 4.17 Comparison of Conditions by Discriminant Analysis for NSC Participants’ Donations to PHEIs (α = .05) Canonical Wilk’s Conditions Eigenvalues Significance Correlation Lambda First condition .135 .345 .881 .003 Second condition .573 .604 .636 .000 Third condition .753 .655 .570 .000

171

Regression Analyses for NSC Participants’ Donation Decision Making

The third condition had 16 subvariables as independent variables to decide the

consequences of one dependent variable—DTP—in the NSC. So far, the foregoing

discussion proved that these 16 subfactors had discriminant ability with regard to NSC

participants’ decision-making about donations to PHEIs. However, which ones played a

critical role in the decision making process? According to standardized canonical

coefficients of discriminant function, Table 4.18 lists all significant critical roles of the

subvariables.

These three variables played the most critical roles in NSC participants’ decision-

making process with regard to donations to PHEIs: purpose of donation to PHEI—

building relationship with PHEI (P4a); interactive focus—well-known people recommended PHEI to corporations (I7j); and interactive focus—PHEI received other corporate donations (I7e). The higher the other variables’ function coefficients, the greater their roles in the NSC participants’ decision-making about donations to PHEIs.

These findings indicate that each corporate donation to a PHEI resulted from a complex decision-making process if NSC participants’ decision making processes were rational, that is, without emotional interference.

172

Table 4.18 Standardized Canonical Coefficients of Discriminant Function for NSC Factors/Variables Symbol Function NSC participants’ highest level of education .311 Number of NSC participants’ employees .032 Number of years NSC participants’ corporations in operation .321 Initiated capital of NSC participants’ corporations .072 Reasons or incentives: Tax savings R1b .293 Purpose of donation to PHEI: Building relationships with PHEI P4a -.497 Means of communicating between corporation and PHEI: Telephone/FAX WC1 .235 Means of communicating between this corporation and PHEI: Email WC2 .259 Interactive Focus: PHEI received donations from other corporations I7e .448 Interactive Focus: Children of top corporate managers study at the PHEI I7h .197 Interactive Focus: Corporation–university cooperation I7i .020 Interactive Focus: Well-known people recommended PHEI to corporations I7j -.446 1996 government policy: Awareness of this policy P10a .112 1996 government policy: Taiwanese traditionally approve of religious P10g3 .333 donation, not for higher education. Does the current mission statement of your corporation include any mention of DV1 .142 charitable giving? Yes, it does Does the current mission statement of your corporation include any mention of DV3 -.133 charitable giving? No, but we will consider it in the future.

A hypothesis for the NSC study was that objective factors, subjective factors, or a mixture of the two influenced the decision-making process surrounding donations made by the NSC participants. According to the analysis of outcomes of the NSC, mixed factors influenced many participants in their decisions to donate to PHEIs. Thus far, the data analyses have been confined to Taiwanese corporations to answer the second research question. What follows is a similar analysis of Taiwanese foundations representatives’ answers to answer the Q2: What incentives motivated these groups to give funds to PHEIs in Taiwan?

Findings Derived from the NSF

Sources of NSFP Participants

According to the original proposal, the researcher planned to contact several colleges that received donations from foundations in order to connect with their donors,

173 but school officials were unwilling to reach out to donors because of the schools’ prohibitions on giving out proprietary information; therefore, sample-seeking strategies were changed. Through trial and error two solutions were developed to collect data from personnel at foundations in Taiwan. One solution was to mail the NSF package to several hundred foundations; the other was to participate in activities sponsored by the

Taiwanese foundation assembly to meet foundation personnel.

The first solution involved two steps. One was to request a powerful recommendation letter from a top government administrator in the fields of culture and welfare in Taiwan. The other step was to look for and collect as many foundation lists as possible from the central government units, such as the Ministry of Interior Affairs

(MoIA), the Ministry of Education (MoE), the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MoEA), and local government entities. Each government unit was in charge of specific-function foundations and provided a book listing those foundations. The combined list totaled almost 3,000 foundations. The researcher divided that list into four endowment-resource categories: community, corporate, government, and scholastic. Because of limited time and money, each category was narrowed down to 200 foundations as potential NSF participants; therefore, a total of 800 foundations were selected for study. The researcher mailed the NSF with the aforementioned recommendation letter. After a couple of days, the researcher followed up by phone to make sure that they received the NSF package.

He encouraged them to complete the NSF. On average, four follow-ups were necessary to convince a representative from each foundation on the list to participate in the study.

174

The other solution to secure foundation participants was to engage in foundation

assembly activities and training courses. By participating in these activities, the

researcher could acquaint himself with many foundation workers or chief executives and

exchange business cards. Afterward, the researcher chose to contact his new

acquaintances to schedule a face-to-face meeting to complete the NSF or conduct a research interview. The researcher obtained 130 total responses from these two solutions, but 31 responses were unusable. Many of these 31 respondents communicated to the researcher that they did not want to accept the invitation to complete the NSF because they doubted their qualification to do so. As a result, the first solution produced just 55 foundation participants to answer the NSF; the second solution yielded 44 viable foundation samples. Consequently, 99 viable NSF samples were available for this study.

Purposes of the NSF Investigation

The purpose of the NSF was to investigate the incentives or reasons, communication, goals, strategies, focuses, interaction, and decision making surrounding donations to PHEIs made by foundations. Table 4.20 displays the entire list of factors or variables. Fundamentally, the NSF was similar to the NSC; therefore, subsequent tables and texts appearing in this section follow the pattern of those in the section on the NSC.

Demographics of NSF Participants

This section contains NSF statistical outcomes and figures to present an approximate picture of the general thoughts of representatives of Taiwanese foundations about educational donations and their attitudes toward donation to national universities

(see Table 4.19). One third of all NSF participants were female, and two thirds were

175

male. The participants’ ages ranged from 27 to 82 years old. The majority had graduated

from college (54.1%). The number of employees for the 99 participating foundations

ranged from one to 100. Almost half of the 99 samples employed fewer than four people.

The initial endowment arrangements of these 99 foundations ranged from only 500,000

New Taiwan Dollars (NTD) (equivalent to USD 16,400) to 1,500,000,000 NTD (USD

50,000,000). NSF respondents’ backgrounds detail in Table 4.19.

Table 4.19 Demographics of Participants in the National Survey for Foundations Variables Classifications Female Male Gender 32 67 A<40 40≤A<50 50≤A<60 60≤A<82 Age (A) 21 22 32 24 Education Jr. High Sr. High College Master Doctorate level 1 7 54 30 7 E<3 3≤E≤10 10

Analysis of NSF Participant Variables

This section contains a discussion of the factors or variables on the NSF other

than respondent demography. Table 4.20 below lists these factors and variables and

informs the subsequent explanation of the analysis of NSF respondent variables. On the

99 NSFs, 76 % of the respondents (76/99) believed their principles or mission statements

of their foundations served as important reasons or incentives to donate to Taiwan’s

PHEIs. In contrast, 80 % of them (79/99) disagreed with tax savings as a determining

factor in their decision to donate. Only 17 % of the 99 NSF participants (17/99) agreed that they were influenced to donate to education by the donations of other foundations,

176

which was one of the reasons or incentives listed on the NSF. More than 60% of these

foundation participants (59/99) agreed that they assumed social responsibilities by

donating their economic resources to Taiwan’s PHEIs. As for cultivating good public relations with the local community, 35 % of the foundation participants (34/99) regarded this incentive as a factor in their decisions to donate to higher education.

To summarize, the statistical information on Taiwanese foundations demonstrates that foundations prefer to focus on specific issues of public interest and minority groups,

such as the elderly, handicapped, and new immigrant brides.

An item on the NSF about connecting Taiwanese foundation giving and higher

education fund needs revealed that foundation personnel used an appropriate network,

such as specific personal connections and proposal applications. In addition 53.5 % of the

NSF respondents (53/99) indicated connections with “specific intermediaries,” serving as

a key factor in their donations to higher education; the standard process for 56.6 % of the

NSF participants (56/99) involved an application process. The process of evaluating

applications sent to foundations by PHEIs included reviewing campus academic prestige

(58.8 %); mission statements (58.8%); quality of research, teaching, and services (60.8

%); and financial positions (56.7 %). The two kinds of donations to higher education

popular among foundation comprised scholarships (66.7%) and research endowments

(34.3%). Sixty percent of foundations surveyed assessed fund applicant proposals.

Table 4.20 177 Results of National Survey of Foundation (NSF) Variables/Factors Label Agree Disagree Incentives or reasons R Foundation-initiated principle R1a 76 23 Tax savings R1b 20 79 Other foundations’ strategies R1c 17 82 Social responsibility R1d 59 40 Public relations R1e 34 65 How to select PHEI recipients H Networking H2a 53 46 Media circulation H2b 32 67 PHEI automatically communicate H2c 56 43 Government informed H2d 31 68 Evaluation V PHEI’s good academic reputation V3a 57 40 PHEI’s excellent alumni V3b 43 54 PHEI’s ranking V3c 33 64 PHEI’s vision, mission, and goals V3d 57 40 PHEI’s research/teaching/services V3e 59 38 PHEI’s financial position V3f 55 42 Types of donation to PHEIs T Grant T4a 34 65 Scholarship T4b 66 33 Instruments T4c 14 85 Project investment T4d 14 85 Specific funds to support special cases T4e 16 83 How to evaluate PHEI donation E Evaluate PHEI’s proposal E5 39 60 Purposes of donating to PHEIs P Building relationship P6a 30 67 Reciprocity P6b 29 68 Charitable behavior P6c 36 61 Follow government policy P6d 36 61 Foundation-initiated endowment P6e 62 35 Strategies S Long-term evaluation and assessment S7a 42 54 Long-term donation is better than short-term S7b 42 54 Specific donation fulfills PHEI needs S7c 48 48 Committee meeting with PHEI and foundation is S7d 45 51 better than individual meeting PHEI should actively fund from foundations S7e 42 54 Interactive Focus I PHEI president’s leadership I8a 43 53 PHEI president’s fundraising performance I8b 25 72 PHEI involvement in community and charity I8c 48 48 PHEI president’s governance I8d 45 51 PHEI received other foundation donations I8e 35 61 Relationship between PHEI administrators and the I8f 25 71 foundation PHEI alumni work in the corporation I8g 5 91 Foundation top managers’ child studies in PHEI I8h 3 93

Foundation–university cooperation I8i 35 61

178

Well-known people recommended PHEI to foundation I8j 37 59 PHEI’s involvement in community activities I8k 48 48 PHEI’s urgent need for financial support I8l 42 54 PHEI and foundation operate nearby I8m 37 59 Foundation leaders favor in areas or a specific PHEI I8n 14 82 Methods of communication WC Telephone or FAX WC1 63 33 Email WC2 44 52 Private meal meeting WC3 6 90 Formal documents WC4 66 30 Private meeting WC5 9 87 Formal meal meeting WC6 10 86 Formal meeting WC7 35 61 Joint theme activity WC8 40 56 Who or which committees decides to donate to PHEI? A specific top manager decided 17 79 A specific committee decided 49 47 No Agree Disagree comment 1996 higher education policy P Awareness of this policy P12a 62 37 It influences your foundation management strategy P12b 14 37 45 It influences your foundation financial plans P12c 13 39 44 It influences your foundation to donate to PHEIs P12d 11 35 50 It influences Taiwanese foundations to donate to PHEI P12e 17 25 54 It encourages foundation to care about PHEIs P12f 22 22 52 It is supported by your foundation P12g 27 11 58 Reasons: Government promotion for this policy needs P12g 31 7 58 improvement 1 Government should fix the tax regulations to match P12g 27 5 64 this policy 2 Taiwanese tradition, like religious donation, not for P12g 24 17 55 higher education. 3 Government should bear all responsibility for higher P12g 26 14 56 education, not corporations / foundations should do. 4 For foundation donations to PHEIs, what do you think T 68 7 21 about the following 3 statements? 1. Government should enact tax reforms to fit this T13a policy for corporations and foundations. 2. Entrepreneurs should bear social responsibility to T13b 50 12 34 donate to PHEIs. 3. All foundations should put social charity donations T13c 62 9 25 into the mission statements. Does your foundation currently include a statement on DV donating to social entities in your mission statement? Yes, we do. DV1 48 48 Yes, not yet now but we are doing. DV2 6 90 No, we will consider in the future. DV3 17 79 No, it is not necessary to do so. DV4 18 78 Did the foundation donate to a PHEI? DTP 39 60 Does the foundation plan to donate to PHEIs in the future? 24 72

179

Taiwanese foundations donated to higher education for the following purposes,

arranged here from most to least frequent answers on the SNF: established targets or

goals of the foundation (63.9%), charity (37.1%), governmental policies (37.1%),

relationship building (30.9%), and reciprocity (29.9%). The foundations also practiced a

negotiation mentality to meet the needs of public colleges through specific and assigned

donations (50%). In order to become familiar with the real needs of public universities, foundation managers preferred to hold committee meetings that included representatives of the university instead of meeting in private (46.9%). Taiwanese foundations and

PHEIs collaborated and negotiated based on the following issues: the extent to which

they contributed to social services and charitable activities (50%), the extent to which they were involved in local communities (50%), the governance of public university presidents or senior administrators (46.9%), the administrators’ leadership (44.8%), the

urgency of financial need (43.8%), whether or not foundations and PHEIs occupied the

same community or local area (38.5%), a recommendation by a celebrity or other well-

known person (38.5%), whether or not the public college received other foundations

donations or not (36.5%), and the possibility of collaboration between the campus and

foundations (36.5%). In general, the common instruments of communication between

foundations and PHEIs were formal documents sent by mail (68.7%), telephone or FAX

(65.6%), email (45.8%), and formal meeting (36.5%). In addition, some foundations

(41.7%) participated in private or government-sponsored conferences, such as energy

conservation, in order to increase opportunities to communicate with personnel from

PHEIs.

180

The next segment discusses the government policy instituted in 1996 and

designed to encourage the self-sufficiency of PHEIs. Just over 62% percent of the 99

NSF participants were aware of such policies in Taiwan, leaving approximately one third uninformed. The NSF also asked foundation administrators’ opinions regarding this policy. Not many foundations (15.6%) thought this policy would influence their guidelines for operation. Similarly, only 13.5 % doubted this policy had impact on their financial allocation; 11.5 % of all the respondents expressed their belief that the policy influenced the willingness of Taiwanese foundations to donate to national higher education; and 17.7 % of the NSF respondents held the opinion that corporate foundations were more inclined to donate to PHEIs because of government policy.

Ironically, although Taiwan’s government instituted the policy in 1996, a mere 23 % of the NSF respondents maintained a positive attitude toward it, Taiwanese foundations paying more attention to the development of higher education in Taiwan. Nearly 30 % of the participants commented that the implementation of this policy was inadequate, and the reasons for low performance of this policy included inadequate promotion by the government (32.3%), lack of follow-up tax reform to meet fiscal needs under this policy

(28.1%), the Taiwanese traditional preference for donations to local religious institutions over those of higher education (25 %), and the popular association between the development of higher education and Taiwan’s government, not foundations (27.1%).

More than half of NSF participants answered questions in the section on the governmental policy with “No comment.” The majority (70.8%) of the participants agreed that Taiwan’s government should take action to reform the current tax system and

181 amend related regulations to facilitate self-sufficiency at PHEIs. According to 52.1% of the NSF respondents, entrepreneurs should bear the social responsibility of supporting public higher education, and 64.6% of the respondents agreed that charitable contributions should appear in the vision or mission statements of corporate foundations.

Thus, Taiwanese entrepreneurs clearly consider the support of charitable institutions as more important than the support of higher education. In addition, more than half of the

NSF participants have indicated that charitable giving should be part of the mission statement of business and industrial organizations.

Statistical Analysis of the NSF: Correlation Analysis

This section explores correlation analyses for NSF participants’ background variables and their decisions to donate to PHEIs. According to the SPSS nonparametric correlation, because the variable DTP (donated to PHEI) in Table 4.21 belongs to dichotomous categories (yes or no), only two aspects of NSF participants’ background variables were significant (α= .01 level, 2-tailed) to DTP. These were education level

(N=99, ρ=.280, p=.005) and NSF participants’ initiated capital endowment (N=99,

ρ=.251, p=.016). The other variables, such as gender, age, number of employees, and number of years the foundation was in operation, were not significant to DTP.

Table 4.21 Correlation of NSF Participants’ Background With DTP (Donated to PHEI or not) Correlation coefficients (ρ: Significant level Number of viable Background variables Spearman’s rho) (2-tailed): p participants Gender .106 .297 99 Age -.189 .061 99 Education level .280 .005** 99 Employees -.010 .924 95 Established capital .251 .016* 92 Years in operation .098 .348 94 * p<.05, ** p<.01

182

Similar to the previous section, this part contains an analysis of correlation relationships for other variables in Table 4.21 and NSF participants’ decisions to donate to PHEIs (Yes/No). The other variables were also analyzed with the SPSS nonparametric correlation. Table 4.22 demonstrates the related information in detail as follows. Twelve factors encompassed 71 subvariables on the NSF; however, 16 subvariables were

significant to DTP, and they derived from 10 factors. Consequently, for the 99 NSF

participants only social responsibility (R1d) was significant (N=99, ρ= -.356, p=.000 < α

= .01) to DTP as an incentive or reason variable (R). As for determining PHEI donation

recipients (H), networking (H2a) was significant to DTP (N=99, ρ= -.264, p=.008 <

α=.01). As for evaluation focus (V), two subvariables were significant to DTP: good

academic reputation of the PHEI (V3a) (N=97, ρ= -.330, p=.001 < α=.01) and its

financial position (V3f) (N=97, ρ= -.308, p=.002 < α=.01). As for types of donations (T),

“specific funds to support special cases” (T4e) was significant to DTP (N=97, ρ= .320, p=.001 < α=.01); as for purpose of foundation donation to PHEIs (P), a unique subvariable—the foundation’s initiated endowment (P6e)—was significant to DTP

(N=97, ρ= -.403, p=.000 < α=.01).

As for foundation strategies used in making donation to PHEIs (S), all subvariables were significant except “PHEI should actively communicate with foundation in seeking donations” (S7e). As for interactive focus (I), two subvariables were significant to DTP: “Well-known people recommended PHEI to foundation” (I8j)

(N=96, ρ= -.295, p=.003 < α=.01) and “Foundation leaders’ favor in some areas or in a specific PHEI” (I8n) (N=96, ρ= -.276, p=.007 < α=.01); as for methods of

183 communication (W), only one subvariable, “formal meeting (WC7),” was significant to

DTP (N=96, ρ=.307, p=.002 < α=.01); as for government policy, only “awareness of the

1996 policy” (P12a) was significant to DTP (N=96, ρ=.324, p=.001 < α=.01).

Table 4.22 NSF Participant Variables Correlated With DTP (Participants Donated To PHEI Or Not) Correlation Coefficients (ρ: Variables Significant level (2-tailed): p Spearman’s rho) R1d** -.346 .000 H2a** -.264 .008 H2c* -.244 .015 V3a** -.330 .001 V3b* -.239 .018 V3c* -.201 .048 V3d* -.206 .043 V3e* -.239 .018 V3f** -.308 .002 T4a* .244 .015 T4e** .320 .001 E5** .354 .000 P6e** -.403 .000 S7a** -.380 .000 S7b** -.314 .002 S7c** -.338 .001 S7d** -.276 .006 S7e* -.233 .023 I8a* -.224 .028 I8d* -.24 .018 I8j** -.295 .003 I8k* -.209 .041 I8l* -.259 .011 I8n** -.276 .007 WC7** .307 .002 WC8* .262 .010 P10a** .324 .001 DV1* .258 .011 DV4* -.262 .010 * p<.05, ** p <.01, N=99

Discriminant Analysis of the NSF

Three conditions distinguished the differences in discriminating ability regarding

NSF participants’ willingness (Yes/No) to donate to PHEIs. The first condition was to analyze significant background variables of NSF respondents. The statistical outcome of

184

this condition displays as follows: The two background variables had discriminant ability

for DTP because the p value of this condition was .002 smaller than α= .01, but its Wilk’s

lambda was high (.872), and its canonical correlation was low (.358) (See Table 4.23).

The second condition was to test other significant variables of NSF participants.

Results showed that the second condition also had discriminant ability due to its p value

of .002, and its Wilk’s lambda was .660 lower than that of the first condition (.872);

furthermore, its canonical correlation was .583 higher than that of the first condition

(.358) (See Table 4.23). Thus, the second condition had more discriminant ability for

DTP than the first condition. The third condition, that is, the combination of the first and

the second conditions, was also analyzed. Its surprising result was that the third condition

had the best discriminant ability to explain the process NSF participants used when

deciding to donate to PHEIs because its p value was .001 and its Wilk’s lambda was .604

lower than those of the first (.872) (See Table 4-23 below) and the second (.660) conditions and its canonical correlation was .629 higher than those of the first (.358) and second (.583) conditions. For detailed information about NSC discriminant analyses,

Table 4.23 displays as follows.

Table 4.23 Comparison by Discriminant Analysis of Three Conditions of NSF Participants’ Decision-Making Process When Donating to PHEIs (α = .01) Conditions Eigenvalues Canonical correlation Wilk’s lambda Significance First condition .147 .358 .872 .002 Second condition .515 .583 .660 .002 Third condition .654 .629 .604 .001

185

Regression Analyses for NSF Participants’ Donation Decision Making

The third condition had 17 subvariables as independent variables to decide the consequences of one dependent variable—DTP in the NSF. So far, the above discussion indicated that these 17 subfactors had discriminant ability for NSF participants’ decision- making process regarding donation to PHEIs. However, which ones played a critical role in the decision-making processes? According to standardized canonical coefficients of discriminant function, Table 4.24 lists the critical roles of all significant subvariables.

The following seven variables played the most critical roles in NSF participants’ decisions to donate to PHEIs: NSF participants’ highest levels of education; NSF participants’ initial foundation endowments; evaluation of PHEI’s financial position

(V3f); types of donation to PHEI: specific funds to support special cases (T4e); purposes behind donating to PHEI: principles of the foundations (P6e); strategies: long-term evaluation and assessment (S7a); interactive focus: foundation leaders’ favor of some areas or of a specific PHEI (I8n); 1996 higher education policy: be aware of this policy

(P12a). The higher the function coefficients of other variables in Table 4.24, the greater their roles in the NSC participants’ decisions to donate to PHEIs.

These findings indicate that each foundation donation to a PHEI resulted from a complex decision-making process if NSF participants’ decision-making processes were rational, that is, without emotional interference. A hypothesis for the NSF study was that objective factors, subjective factors, or a mixture of the two influenced the decision- making processes surrounding donations made by the NSF participants. According to the

186 analysis of the outcomes of the NSF, mixed factors influenced many participants in their decisions to donate to PHEIs.

Table 4.24 Standardized Canonical Coefficients of Discriminant Function for NSF Factors/Variables Symbol Function NSF participants’ highest level of education .417 Initiated endowments at NSF participants’ foundation .357 Reasons or incentives: Social responsibility (R1d) .099 How to select PHEI recipients: Networking (H2a) .011 Evaluation: Good academic reputation of PHEI (V3a) .176 Evaluation: Financial position of PHEI (V3f) -.227 Types of donation to PHEI: Specific funds to support special cases (T4e) .378 How to evaluate PHEI donation: Evaluate PHEI proposal (E5) .152 Purposes of donation to PHEI: Foundation-initiated principle (P6e) -.330 Strategies: Long-term evaluation and assessment (S7a) -.370 Strategies: Long-term donation is better than short-term (S7b) -.047 Strategies: Specific donation fulfills needs of PHEI (S7c) .137 Strategies: Committee meeting of PHEI and foundations is better than (S7d) .168 individual meeting Interactive focus: Well-known people recommended PHEI to foundation (I8j) .105 Interactive focus: Foundation leaders’ favor in some areas or in a specific (I8n) -.287 PHEI. Means of communication: Formal meeting (WC7) .034 1996 higher education policy: Awareness of this policy (P12a) .282

Responses to Research Questions 2 Through 5

Based on Interviews with Corporate and Foundation Leaders

Introduction

This section includes a discussion of answers to the five research questions obtained through the qualitative research method known as phenomenology. Earlier in this chapter the researcher explained how he located research interviewees from two interview sample pools: Taiwanese businesses and Taiwanese foundations. The researcher interviewed 27 people associated with businesses and 21 people associated with foundations.

187

The interviews usually took place at participants’ offices or in the conference

rooms of their organizations. Making an interview appointment usually required several

phone calls with participants’ secretaries. When more helpful intermediaries were

involved, appointments were made more quickly with the interview participants. In order

to interview these 48 participants, the researcher traveled Taiwan from north to south and

from west to east, driving a car or using public transportation. Interviewing participants

around Taiwan was sometimes interesting and other times dull. Making new friends and

learning some lessons for research were interesting, but experiencing rejection and lack

of sympathy from top corporate administrators and taking long-distance journeys alone were among the unpleasant aspects of this research. The researcher’s reaction toward rejection was at first frustration and disappointment, but he persevered in looking for other participants. Gradually, data collection was completed but cost much time and money. Money was spent on traffic expenses and customary gifts, and time was spent waiting for reluctant participants’ responses. Overall, the researcher learned to overcome internal and external difficulties and to face challenges in order to complete data collection for this research.

The researcher considered several Taiwanese enterprises as sources of potential interviewees in the study. The 27 business participants worked at 5 business syndicates and 10 regular, small or mid-sized companies. The five larger companies were involved with construction, air conditioning, electrical engineering, high technology, and gasoline stations. The 10 remaining companies dealt with harbor freight loading, antiques, technology, business trade, Chinese medicine, and computer hardware and software.

188

Some of these 27 corporate interviewees responded to the National Survey of

Corporations and agreed to be interviewed by the researcher, and some came from the snowball effect initiated through introductions by several key intermediaries.

Eight of the interviewees associated with Taiwanese foundations came from cultural and educational foundations, which focused on areas such as local community colleges, science education, university foundations, and elementary education in rural districts. One interviewee was from a civil consultant club. The foundation interview participants came from two source types: (a) foundations’ activities in which the researcher participated in order to build in-group networks and (b) introductions by the researcher’s friends. All interviews were recorded with a stereo recorder and a recording pen after the researcher was granted permission. Each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes and involved at least five protocol interview questions. The questions were designed to elicit reasons for and thoughts about donations made by the organizations to

PHEIs in Taiwan.

The next step was to transcribe interview records in Mandarin; some participants occasionally conversed with the researcher in Taiwanese. Taiwanese and Mandarin are the languages most commonly used in Taiwan, including in industries, such as construction and manufacturing; therefore, communicating in Taiwanese and Mandarin dialogue while interviewing was inevitable. The researcher transcribed recorded interview conversations taking place in Taiwanese into Mandarin by paraphrase because some interviews included local slang and idioms beyond the researcher’s understanding.

189

Mandarin was used for the transcriptions because it is more amenable to qualitative research than Taiwanese.

Taiwanese Corporate Donations to Taiwan’s PHEIs: Qualitative Perspectives

The 27 top administrators interviewed from Taiwan’s business world were energetic, vigorous, and confident. The interviewer aimed to understand their experiences through their accounts of their donations to PHEIs. Their personal recollections offered opportunities to infer opinions, reasons, strategies, purposes, and other factors that related to decision making surrounding donations to PHEIs by their businesses. Table 4.25 delineates the demographics of the 27 interviewees. Their average age was 61.4 years old with an age range of 48 to 71 years old. Only two female company presidents (7.6%) were among the interviewees. The primary business types sampled were technology

(n=7) and traditional (n=19) industries. The former refers to specific industries that

Taiwan’s government encouraged, such as integrated circuit (IC), IC testing, personal computer (PC), or laptop. The latter refers to the other industries with longer histories, such as construction, manufacturing, air conditioning, or aviation. Another way to classify these industries is with the “enterprise economic scale.” This term refers to how many entities make up one company, consisting of corporate groups (n=13) and small to mid-sized companies (n=14). Corporate groups have more than three companies or enterprises that operate together; small to mid-sized companies are usually made up of one or two entities.

The sample selection for this part of the study was secured through networking and the snowball effect. Without networking the researcher would have been unable to

190 meet 20 of the corporate leaders who served as interviewees (74%). The researcher used five sources to find these interviewees: networking, PHEIs, specific industry associations, governmental conferences, and individuals who completed the National Survey of

Corporation (NSC) and agreed to an interview. Interviews took place from March 2007 to

March 2008, whereas the study proposal estimated they would take only 3 months.

Networking required extra time and prolonged completion of the project. Other methods such as trial and error were used to supplement planned sampling procedures. As a result,

26% of all interview participants from business and industry came from trial and error, compared to the 74% who came from networking. The sample included 15 presidents, two vice presidents, one senior consultant, two chief executive officers (CEOs), two vice

CEOs, three managers, one owner, and one architect.

The face-to-face interviews usually took place at their respective company offices or conference rooms after making a final appointment. Sometimes, the interviews occurred at an airport coffee shop or restaurants for the interviewees’ convenience. These

27 participants came from 22 different businesses, including construction materials, harbor transportation, air conditioning, antiques, diamonds and jewelry, IC channel,

Internet, Chinese herbs and medicine, electrical engineering, IC, technology import, gas station, kitchen materials, fertilizer, education, computers, energy efficiency, imports, equipment, airline, regional development, and architecture.

191

Table 4.25 Demographics of Corporate Interviewees * Subject Gender Position Title Age Type Area Date A M Sr. Advisor 70 C.G. airline 1/17/2008 B M Manager 48 S.M.C. imports 3/3/2008 C M President 76 C.G. air conditioning 3/13/2007 D M President 65 C.G. construction material 01/30/2008 E M President 68 S.M.C. harbor transportation 01/22/2008 F M President 60 S.M.C. regional development 10/31/2007 G M Architect 58 S.M.C. architecture 12/17/2007 H M President 71 S.M.C. equipment 11/24/2007 I M President 66 S.M.C. technology imports 11/13/2007 J M President 58 C.G. airline 11/28/2008 K M President 69 S.M.C. energy saver 2/22/2008 L M vice CEO 66 C.G. computers 2/15/2008 M F Owner 67 C.G. education services 11/10/2007 N M CEO 58 C.G. air conditioning 11/09/2008 O M vice President 61 C.G. kitchen materials 12/13/2007 P M President 64 C.G. civil construction 12/13/2007 Q M President 67 C.G. gas station 12/05/2007 R M CEO 61 S.M.C. IC 3/06/2008 S M Sr. Manager 55 C.G. electrical engineering 3/11/2008 T M President 63 S.M.C. Chinese medicine 11/07/2007 U M President 58 S.M.C. Internet 11/08/2007 V M vice President 60 C.G. IC channel 11/12/2008 W M vice CEO 54 S.M.C. diamonds and jewelry 11/12/2008 X M President 55 S.M.C. antiques 11/12/2008 Y F President 50 S.M.C. import trade 12/26/2007 Z M Manager 57 C.G. fertilizer 12/14/2007 ZZ M President 53 S.M.C. construction 1/26/2008 *Gender column: M=Male, F=Female; Type column: C.G.=Corporate group, S.M.C.=Small to mid-sized companies

The 27 participants were identified by capital letters from A through Z plus ZZ

(See Table 4.25). The entire processes of qualitative data analyses would have been much more complex and time-consuming without qualitative software to facilitate transcribing

27 participants’ interviews word by word in Chinese, coding the 135-page transcript in

Chinese, summarizing each participant’s description in English, looking for themes within each interview in Chinese, translating each participant’s themes in English as well as categorizing almost 300 codes into 20 major codes (See Table 4.26), translating these

20 major codes in English, organizing these qualitative data by constructing several tables or charts, and demonstrating findings to answer research questions 2 through 5.

Analysis of the transcripts yielded 300 codes from the 27 interviews, and 20 major codes

192 for corporate interviews emerged after narrowing down the 300 codes if more than 3 participants gave the same responses. Table 4.26 displays the relationships between the research questions and the 20 major codes derived from interviews with corporate leaders.

Table 4.26 Relationship of Major Codes and Research Questions Major codes in Mandarin Major codes in English Research questions Corporate growth through sales revenue and Q1, Q2

公司規模 several other areas 公司發展 Corporate development Q2 交流互動 Multiple interactions Q2 社會公益 Public welfare Q2 節稅 Tax savings Q2 人才培訓 Human resources Q2, Q5 建教合作 University–industry cooperation Q2, Q5 社會責任 Social responsibility Q2 預算制度 Official budget systems Q4 校務基金 Campus funds Q4 校友 Alumni Q2, Q3 回饋母校 Giving back to alma mater Q2, Q3 世界觀 Global views Q5 高科技 High technology industry Q1 回饋社會 Giving back to society Q2 企業形象 Corporate image Q2 校友會 Alumni association Q3 捐資興學 Altruistic investment in colleges Q4 知名度 Name recognition Q3, Q5 研發能力 Research and development (R&D) Q2, Q5

Research questions 2 through 5 were answered as shown in Table 4.26. As for research question 2—What incentives motivate these groups to give funds to PHEIs in

Taiwan?—their incentives or reasons included the surplus of profits resulting from the growth of their corporations and the possibility of their corporate donations to PHEIs

193 leading to corporate development. Some corporate managers hoped to interact with

PHEIs; others felt a responsibility to bear some of the burden of public welfare with aid to education. Some considered the tax savings when they made donations to PHEIs.

Some managers hoped to gain good human resources from PHEIs. Others wanted to build university–industry cooperation. Many corporate managers donated to their alma maters, and some donated to PHEIs as a way of giving back to society, enhancing their corporate images, and raising their company’s R & D potential.

Table 4.27 Corporate Interviewees’ Answers to Research Question 2 Q2: What incentives motivate corporations to give funds to PHEIs? Responding Social responsibility 18 Tax savings 10 Corporate development 6 Recruitment of human resources 6 Corporate image 5 Cooperation between corporation and PHEI 4 Public welfare/interest 3 Corporate R & D 3 Giving back to alma maters 3 Good karma 2 Giving back to society 2 Improvement of the environment; reduction of pollution 1 Budget surplus 1 Stable business development 1 Competition for human resources 1 Alumni giving 1 Corporate interests 1 Competitive ability 1 Market consideration 1 Manager’s preferences 1 Market strategy 1 Skills or research for technical support 1 Peer or competitor pressure 1 Public relations 1 Recruit human resources related to business 1 Recruit human resources for R & D 1 Corporation–PHEI–government cooperation 1 Relationships 1

194

As for Q3—How do these groups decide which PHEI to fund?—most of the interviewees were inclined to donate to their alma maters because their alumni associations kept in touch with them and usually invited them to attend activities there.

Some corporate managers gave donations based on name recognition of the PHEI. As for

Q4—How has corporate giving to PHEIs changed since the 1996 government policy was instituted?—nearly two thirds of the corporate participants supported this policy because it opened channels to increase interaction between PHEIs and corporations.

Table 4.28 Corporate Interviewees’ Answers to Research Question 3 Q3: How do corporations decide which PHEIs to fund? Responding Alumni giving back to alma maters 7 We donate to PHEIs where research related to the business is conducted 4 Alumni association contacts 2 Manager donates to PHEI his children attended. 2 Professional managers look for PHEIs to assist with corporate needs, fill a 1 lack in product materials or human resources, etc. PHEIs engage in specific research projects to meet corporate demands 1 Appropriate timing 1 Helping PHEIs is a matter of public welfare, not politics 1 Corporate staff members’ alma maters, internal decision made at corporate 1 meeting Corporate executive as spiritual leader of company decides recipients of donations; board members second her or his recommendation to donate to 1 PHEIs Corporation donates to PHEIs with departments related to their own to 1 facilitate future recruitment of human resources Name recognition 1 Corporation donates to PHEI to support specific professors whose work 1 aligns with manager’s interests and who are loyal to manager’s plans. Project directors’ performance and reputation 1 Manager fully supported the programs at PHEI that provide activities for 1 school children do after school. This corporation supports the baseball team at the PHEI. 1 PHEI provides useful resources for this corporation. 1 Manager of corporate group emphasizes global views and supports employees learning English, donates with the hope that PHEI will train its 1 graduates in these two areas. PHEI provides curriculum for continuing education of corporate 1 employees

195

One third of the 27 participants, however, doubted that American-style private

investment in higher education would be effective in Taiwan, but they still supported

altruistic investment in colleges in Taiwan. As shown in Table 4.26, five factors played a role in the answer to Q5. Enhancing name recognition of corporate donors, improving research and development, having more opportunities for global views, recruiting good human resources from PHEIs, and building cooperation between PHEIs and industry were the primary variables or factors in the answer to Q5.

The next section includes a discussion of these four research questions 2 through

5 with reference to Tables 4.26, 4.27, 4.28, 4.29, and 4.30, which were created to show how the 27 corporate participants responded to them. The 27 interview transcripts were individually summarized with regard to each research question in Table 4.26. Based on

Table 4.26 and the summaries, Table 4.27 contains their answers to research question 2;

Table 4.28, responses to research question 3; Table 4.29, thoughts on research question 4; and Table 4.30, actual factors influencing corporate donations to PHEI.

Twenty-eight kinds of incentives motivated corporations to give funds to PHEIs as shown in Table 4.27. The top incentives are social responsibility (18/27), tax savings

(10/27), recruiting of human resources (6/27), corporate development (6/27), corporate image (5/27), cooperation between corporations and PHEIs (4/27), public welfare/interest

(3/27), corporate R & D (3/27), giving back to alma maters (3/27), good karma (2/27), and giving back to society (2/27). Nineteen responses were given to research question 3.

Three corporate participants did not respond to this question (see Table 4.31). Generally speaking, “giving back to their alma maters” (7/24) was the most common response to

196 question 3, especially among leaders of technology enterprises. The second most popular response was “Corporations donate to PHEIs operating in areas related to their own research” (See Table 4.28).

Table 4.29 Corporate Interviewees’ Answers to Research Question 4 Q4: How has corporate giving to PHEIs changed since the 1996 government policy was Response instituted? This policy benefits PHEI and corporations, encouraging chances to interact with one another. 2 Agreed with this policy, informing people of the needs of PHEIs. 2 Some firms need more information on the purpose and function of each PHEI’s fund. 1 This policy had better have the global perspectives. Government encourage more international 2 corporations should be allowed to contribute. Manager was happy to support this policy, but the government should take care of PHEIs. 1 Businesses share social responsibility by assisting PHEIs to become self-sufficient. Disagreed with this policy 1 Manager worried that this policy would influence academic freedom at PHEIs. 1 Manager worried that PHEI fundraising would turn into a “commission scandal” as it had with 1 private colleges and corporate donors. Respondent disagreed with this policy because the government should bear full responsibility for 1 PHEI development, not corporations. Interviewee agreed with this policy because PHEI should not be completely dependent on 1 government support; historically, only a few PHEIs have been able to raise their own funds. This policy helps turn campus funds into competitive market organism. Respondent suggested the government should compensate PHEIs with shorter histories of funding. A combination of a 1 competitive market organism and a compensation system would create fairness and justice. This policy is a good one because PHEI dependence on the government is not always desirable, 1 and this policy meets global competition needs. Respondent completely favored this policy. 1 The corporation never engaged in PHEI fundraising. 1 Interviewee agreed with this policy to balance the allocation of social resources from technology 1 industries and traditional industries. This policy is not well known because Taiwan’s people don’t sense the need to 1 donate to PHEIs. Manager agreed with this policy because this is a win–win strategy for PHEIs and corporations. 1 Respondent thought the advantages of this policy were greater than its disadvantages. It speeds up 1 to circulate knowledge about PHEIs. Interviewee complained that PHEIs suffer from serious personnel issues and budget misallocation. 1 This policy has not eliminated these problems. Manager disagreed with this policy because Taiwan’s industrial complex is dominated by small to 1 mid-sized businesses that won’t support this policy. Respondent disagreed with this policy. It turns Taiwan’s higher education into a competitive market organism so that PHEIs will emphasize business and market functions, not academic 1 values and functions. Interviewee agreed with this policy. PHEIs can learn fundraising methods and strategies from 1 Taiwan’s religious communities. Interviewee agreed with this policy in order to decrease the burden on the government budget. 1 This policy is a trend in global competition. Manager agreed with this policy if the mission of PHEIs relates to a corporation’s business areas. 1

197

Nearly two thirds of corporate interviewees supported the 1996 government- instituted self-sufficiency policy for PHEIs for various reasons. Table 4.29 reveals that they agreed that this policy opened opportunities for interaction between PHEIs and corporations to make more transparent the needs of PHEIs in Taiwan; however, one third of the corporate interviewees disagreed with this policy, and they criticized Taiwan’s higher education policies, including this fundraising policy. Thirty factors emerged from

Q5. The popular factors were networking (9), recruitment of human resources (6), and know-how and R & D obtained by Taiwan’s corporations from PHEIs (3) (Table 4.30).

Table 4.30 Corporate Interviewees’ Answers to Research Question 5 Q5: What factors or variables influence the PHEI fundraising network? Responding Networking 9 Human resources recruited by corporations from PHEIs 6 Corporations obtain know-how and R & D from PHEIs. 3 Build relationships, connections, interactions between corporations and PHEIs 2 Alma mater (alumni association); emotional and continuous appeals 2 Cooperation between corporation and PHEI 2 Corporate managers have an initial preference or interest in specific programs or areas emphasized at PHEI 2 Corporation assumes social responsibility by donating to a PHEI 2 Corporations benefit from tax savings by donating to PHEI 2 PHEI and corporations are synchronized; PHEI provides research projects to meet corporate needs. 1 Social values, meaning, and contents of PEHI fundraising plans and approaches 1 Recognition of PHEI’s role in social or public welfare 1 Recognition by society or corporations of performance of PHEI students and graduates 1 Corporation obtains specific business or construction opportunity with PHEI 1 Corporation’s social concerns, such as image enhancement 1 Corporations want to have reputation of donating to PHEI. 1 Economic cycles 1 Corporation enhances its potential for competition by donating to PHEI. 1 Corporation enhances its name recognition by donating to PHEI. 1 Corporation improves its market development and strategy for products. 1 Attitudes and interests of corporate presidents or CEOs in donating to PHEIs 1 Achievements of PHEI alumni 1 Attitudes of PHEI alumni toward giving back 1 Corporation follows government policy to support PHEIs 1 Executive ability and power of PHEI presidents 1 Government recognition of corporate donations to PHEI 1 Background of corporate executive 1 Evaluation of effects of donating to PHEI 1 Multiple incentives to donate to PHEI for future purposes 1 Quality and direction of teaching at PHEI, including providing materials to train corporate employees 1

198

To help readers understand the findings above, Appendix I section presents a summary of each participant’s interview. These summaries derived from English translations of transcripts originally done in Mandarin; the 27 summaries represent 27 top corporate managers’ opinions and attitudes toward donating to PHEIs. In summary, interviews with these 27 participants disclosed that if PHEIs could create, develop, or provide a value to meet corporate needs, corporations would support them with economics resources. This value is a combination of the efforts of academics, business and industrial markets, a society, and a government. This study attempted to determine the functions of PHEI fundraising and its importance as a powerful value creator or connector of PHEIs and corporations. According to findings from the NSC survey and 27

Taiwanese entrepreneurs’ interviews, competition among the nations of the world has become the engine driving PHEIs to continue progressing in academia, corporations to challenge future markets and to collaborate with academia to meet those challenges, and a government to lead its society to compete with global competitors.

In the following section data shown in Appendix I has been developed into qualitative theme discussions. Each theme discussion answers or responds to Q2 and Q3.

Q2 asked, “What incentives motivate these corporations to give funds to PHEIs in

Taiwan?” According to American fundraising theories presented in chapter 2, five basic incentives motivate U. S. corporations to support their educational institutions;

Taiwanese corporate leaders generally indicated similar incentives but with some difference. According to Table 4.27, the corporate development incentive covers corporate image, corporate R & D, and corporate marketing strategies. These motivations

199 help each corporation fulfill growth potential to earn credits in the future by giving funds to PHEIs. In summary, twelve of 27 corporate interviewees discussed the diverse aspects of this incentive, such as marketing, production skills and R & D, and image. The tax saving incentive was an important one for Taiwanese corporations giving to PHEIs with

10 of 27 companies strongly emphasizing this factor in their PHEI donation decision making. Few corporate participants regarded this incentive as their motivation to give to

PHEIs because they saw this tax saving as a consequence of their philanthropic donation.

Social responsibility was the most important incentive for Taiwanese corporations to give funds to PHEIs. Eighteen of 27 corporate participants presented this as a key factor in the corporation’s philanthropic principles and in their educational sponsorship of PHEIs.

These three themes or donation incentives spontaneously and synchronously became the common giving incentives to PHEIs for U. S. and Taiwanese corporations. The other two incentives to give common in the USA—social currency and public relations—were not common incentives for Taiwanese corporations to donate to PHEIs; these were replaced by the recruitment of human resources by the corporation and cooperation between corporations and PHEIs.

How do these corporations decide which PHEIs to fund? Table 4.28 disclosed all corporate participants’ responses to this question. Basically, three themes emerged in response to this question. The first theme is the roll of alumni in giving; the second,

PHEIs ability to fulfill corporate donors’ needs; and the third, a relationship between the

PHEI and the company. In terms of the first theme, 7 corporate participants indicated that corporate contributions to Taiwanese PHEIs come primarily from alumni, either through

200

personal donations or donations from their companies. The second theme involves the

fulfillment of corporate needs by PHEIs, such the enhancement of the corporation’s

materials or skills, human resources, continuing education programs, and sports. The

third theme regards the relationship between the PHEI and the corporation; for example,

corporate staff members have some relationship with specific PHEIs because their

children study there, making them generally aware of the fundraising needs at these

PHEIs. The foregoing themes have been discussed in greater details in chapter 5.

Taiwanese Foundation Donations to Taiwan’s PHEIs: Qualitative Perspectives

About 4000 foundations operate in Taiwan and follow diverse principles for

supporting social groups or organizations that have been generally ignored or neglected

in society because the Taiwanese government has not reached out to them. Although

many foundations functioned on the small island of Taiwan at the time of this writing,

only one fourth of them actively pursued and realized their purposes or goals. An issue complicating the research of Taiwan’s foundations was the multigovernment bureaucratic

organization in charge of these foundations, including the central bureaus and local

government units. Thus, participant sampling for this investigative study was

challenging.

For the foundation interview part of this study, representatives of 21 foundations

accepted the request to be interviewed for this study. They came from various types of

foundations in Taiwan, such as those supported by the government (n=2) or a political

party (n=1), corporate groups (n=4), families (n=3), and special-interest groups (n=10).

Some of the foundations in this study were classified according to their function, such as

201

research and development (n=1), culture (n=2), education (n=2), culture and education

(n=11), medicine and health (n=1), specific business unions or associations (n=3), consulting (n=1), and religion (n=2).

In Taiwan, funding for foundations came from group funding and special-interest

funding. The former includes budget allocations of the central or local government to

promote or execute a specific policy, such as Participant a; corporate-group funding or

support to execute the principles of their foundations, such as Participant g; and family-

based funds to memorialize parents or grandparents who served society, such as

Participant d. The latter derived from people organized specifically to fund community

foundations, specific-area foundations, or religious foundations to serve their target

groups, such as Participants p and b.

Nine types of foundations operated in Taiwan at the time of this writing according

to the Directory of 300 Major Foundations in Taiwan: culture and education, culture and

arts, charity and social welfare, mass media, economic development, environmental

protection, medicine and health, the press, sightseeing and travel, and law and legislation.

In this study, a total of 16 foundations were dedicated to culture and education; five were

of various other types. For data collection, the snowball effect and personal networking

were primary strategies to connect with 21 foundation interviewees. The snowballing

effect resulted in 11 foundation interviewees; networking resulted in 10. All were asked

to participate in interviews that would be recorded. Twenty interviewees met face-to-face

with the researcher, and one was interviewed via telephone.

202

The interviews were 20 to 40 minutes in duration and took place in participants’ offices, foundation conference rooms, and various types of eateries. Five females and 16 males were interviewed. The average age of the foundation participants was 56 years old with a range of 45 to 70 years old. Their education backgrounds were as follows: Ph.D.

(n=3), master’s degree (n=11), and bachelor’s degree (n=7).

Table 4.31 Demographics of Interviewees from Foundations Gender Age Education Foundation Type (source of funding) Position Date a Government research foundation (grain R & D, government Male 57 Ph.D. Director 1-16- 08 support) b Cultural and educational foundation General Male 52 Master 12-14-07 (Christian, religious funds) director c Executive Male 58 Bachelor Cultural foundation (Catholic, religious funds) 1-10- 08 Director d Medical Vice Male 59 Medical foundation (hospital, family funds) 1-21- 08 Doctor president e Male 61 Ph. D. Educational foundation (family funds) President 12-15-07 . f Cultural/educational foundation (family funding and support, Executive Male 65 Master 11-30-07 public welfare and promotion of adult education) Director g Cultural/educational foundation (cultural promotion, Secretary Male 49 Master 11-30-07 corporate funds, support from political party) General h Cultural/educational foundation Executive Male 56 Master 1-8- 08 (Scouts, special-interest funding) Director i Director Female 50 Master Cultural/educational foundation (corporate group) 7-30- 08 General j Cultural/educational foundation (help children development, Male 52 Master President 12-18-07 special-interest funding) k Estate auction association (estate union funds Male 56 Bachelor Director 12-24-07 and support, special-interest funding) l Academic/cultural/educational foundation Male 58 Master C.E.O 11-11-07 (private university) m Executive Female 49 Master Cultural/educational foundation (corporate group) 12-06-07 Director n Vice Female 48 Master Cultural/educational foundation (corporate group) 11-30-07 Executive o Cultural/educational foundation (educational policy, special- Female 45 Bachelor Director 12-24-07 interest funding) p Cultural/educational foundation (community, organized and Executive Male 56 Bachelor 10-02-07 funded by retired teachers) Director q Director Male 58 Master Air conditioning union (industrial unions funds) 12-12-07 General r Educational foundation (private college, Male 70 Bachelor President 11-17-07 funded by family corporation) s Member Female 56 Master Cultural foundation (serving the elderly) 11-27-07 of Board t Male 46 M.D. Health recovery association (industrial unions funds) Doctor 11-21-07 u Executive Male 63 Ph. D. Civil engineering consultant (government funds) 12-22-07 Director

Their titles included director (n=3), general director (n=3), executive director

(n=6), president (n=3), vice president (n=2), secretary general (n=1), CEO (n=1),

203 foundation board member (n=1), and M.D (n=1). The foregoing demographic information is summarized in Table 4.31, which includes gender, age, education, foundation type with source of funds, position, and date of interview. Tables 4.31 shows the participants who contributed their opinions with making donations to PHEIs.

Table 4.32 List of Major Codes from Foundation Participants Major codes in Mandarin Major codes in English Relation to Q2 to Q5 社會責任 Social responsibility Q2 研發能力 Research and development (R & D) Q2,Q5 基金會母校背景 Alumni background Q2,Q5 免稅誘因 Tax-exempt incentives Q2,Q5 宗旨 Principles Q2,Q5 人際關係 Networking Q5 營業額比例給基金會 Percentage of sales revenue to a foundation Not related 團隊精神 Team spirit Not related 競賽獎學金 Scholarship contest Q3 回饋社會 Giving back to society Q2 節稅 Tax savings Q2, Q5 公益事業 Public welfare business Q2 良性循環 The cyclical nature of positive cause and effect Not related 回饋母校 Giving back to alma maters Q2,Q3 感情因素 Emotional factors Q2, Q3 企業形象 Corporation image Q2 自籌款 Self-fundraising ratio/percentage Q4 Investigation of family situation of scholarship Q3 家訪 applicants 董事會 Foundation board Q3 人才培訓 Recruitment of human resources Q2,Q5 大學社團 College student organizations Q3 Priority to donate derives from people who need Q3 捐助對像為優先考量 assistance in money 捐資興學 Altruistic investment in colleges Q4 人才 Human resources Q2, Q5 淵源 Kinship between PHEI and foundations Q5 人脈 Personal relations; networking Q5 社會需要 Societal needs Q2, Q5 媒體報導 Publicity Q3

The following sections contain the remaining findings for this study. The 21 interviews with foundation personnel produced six recorded tapes 60 minutes in duration

204 and 4 CDs. These original data were transcribed word for word in Mandarin. Thus, the

121 pages of transcription represented the original oral and written data used as a primary base of analysis for this qualitative section on donations made to PHEIs by foundations.

Next, the researcher coded the conversations in these 121 pages of transcription was to code these conversations. The 428 codes that surfaced in the coding list were narrowed to

28 major codes, produced by counting the frequency of each code mentioned at least twice in all transcriptions. Then the researcher translated these 28 major codes from

Mandarin into English. Table 4.32 shows the relationship among Q2 to Q5, major codes in Mandarin and English, and foundation interviewees.

As for Q2—What incentives motivate these groups to give funds to PHEIs?—

Table 4.33 lists several foundation representatives’ responses to this question. Nine foundation interviewees mentioned the most popular incentive to donate to PHEI for foundations—social responsibility. Eight foundation interviewees responded that the principles or purposes of some foundations regulated their support for PHEIs or the development of higher education in Taiwan. Six foundation interviewees pointed out that their foundations have to foster R & D at their sponsoring corporation; this responsibility motivated their donations to PHEIs. Certainly, tax savings or tax exemption incentives were a popular reason for many foundation donations to PHEIs as was the case for eight foundation interviewees. Three foundations were responsible for recruiting good human resources for their sponsoring corporations. Some foundation leaders regarded their emotional attachment to their alma maters as an important consideration in the decision to donate to these schools. Two more incentives listed in Table 4.33 were corporate or

205

foundation images and social needs. Therefore, social responsibility, the principles of the

foundation, tax factors, support for R & D, recruitment of human resources, bolstering

corporate image, and social needs were the primary incentives motivating Taiwanese

foundations to give funds to PHEIs.

As for Q3—How do these groups decide which PHEIs to fund?—the majority of

the foundation interviewees stated that giving back to one’s alma mater was the primary

factor in the decision making surrounding donation. This incentive is an emotionally

complex factor that influences many PHEI alumni when they attain positions as top

administrators in a foundation and have the authority to allocate their financial resources of the foundation. Several foundation interviewees interpreted the principles of their foundation creatively by promoting contests to inspire or encourage research following on a particular theme at higher education institutions; for example, a foundation might sponsor a contest for robot development in Taiwan instead of offering traditional scholarships to support college students from poor families. Many foundations, however, still maintained traditional ways to help college students by providing scholarships. Many

students applied for scholarships, so the representatives of foundations visited applicants’

families in order to understand each applicant’s background and actual need. Foundation

boards usually made the final decision in determining how much of their budgets were to

be designated as scholarship sources and how many students would be awarded

foundation scholarships. Some foundations offered specific programs or training for

special groups, such as teenagers or the elderly. Such foundations sometimes needed

PHEI student organizations to assist in their activities. Thus, these foundations donated to

206

these student organizations to cooperate together to meet these needs. Managers at

foundations oriented toward charity or public interest often considered people or special

groups as their donation priority. Several foundation interviewees emphasized the power of the media in decisions to donate. The media often influenced decisions and policies about donations to education by reporting on PHEIs urgently needing financial support.

In summary, Taiwanese foundation managers chose which PHEIs to donate to based on

their past experiences, alma maters, governance or philosophy of the foundation, program

or activity needs, or media reports.

As for Q4—How has corporate and foundation giving to PHEIs changed since the

1996 government policy was instituted?—not many foundation managers were concerned

about this new policy because the majority of foundations in Taiwan had already

operated by its principles or philosophy. They did not think this policy had influenced the

goals of their operation or changed their financial allocations. Some of the foundation

interviewees had known about this policy and were concerned about what percentage of

the entire PHEI budget could actually be raised by the PHEIs. When the PHEI budget

comes more from fundraising, Taiwan government’s higher education burdens decrease.

At that time, the government would ask foundations to be involved in public welfare or

special interests in higher education because the latter in particular would need financial

support from foundations. Prior to 1996, Taiwan’s government encouraged altruistic

investments in higher education. The policy in effect at the time of this writing involved

corporate-centered investment in PEHIs. Several foundation participants discussed this

207

change: They understood why Taiwan’s government initiated this policy, but they also worried that Taiwan’s academic values and independence have deteriorated over time.

As for Q5—What factors or variables influence the PHEI fundraising network?— as shown in Table 4.32, several major codes are relevant to this question. They include R

& D of related corporations, top foundation managers as alumni of PHEI, tax incentives, principles of the foundation, foundation networking, recruitment of human resources for related corporations, specific societal needs, personal networking, and kinship of PHEI and foundations. Upon further manipulation of these codes into major factors, the following emerged: principles of the foundation, tax incentives, networking between foundations and PHEI, assistance with R & D at company associated with foundation, and recruitment of human resources. Table H1in Appendix H presents to summarize 21

Taiwanese foundations’ responses to Q2 to Q5.

Foundation Participants’ Responses to Research Questions

Table H2 shows the answers each interviewee gave to Q2 through Q5. Tables H7,

H8, H9, group the answers to each question thematically, one question per table. First,

Table H7 includes the 25 kinds of responses to the question on foundations incentives to give funds to PHEIs. The top eight incentives were as follows: social responsibility, tax incentives, principles of the foundation, giving back to society, giving back to alma maters, foundation development, pressure from corporate competitors, and recruitment of human resources. Next, Table H8 lists all answers to Q 3 from the 21 foundation interviewees. This Table reveals the four most influential factors underlying foundation decisions about which PHEIs to fund. Connection between an alma mater and foundation

208

was the most popular reason. Another factor was that PHEIs have related departments or

research projects matching the focus of the foundation. Sometimes government policies

or mandates motivated the funding of a PHEI. Fourth, some foundations provided

scholarships to college students. As for Q4—How has corporate and foundation giving to

PHEIs changed since the 1996 government policy was instituted?—each participant had

varied perspectives, so the table shows 2 more responses than the total number of 21

foundation interviewees (See Table H9). Even though the interviewees came from

various kinds of foundations, most relied on the general functions of the foundation and

its role in society to consider and answer this question. As for Q5—What factors or

variables influence the PHEI fundraising network?—eight factors emerged as shown in

Table H10: good name recognition of the PHEI as good advertisement, tax savings or tax exemption, alumni giving back to alma maters, social responsibility, foundation image enhancement, human resource recruitment, multi-networking of PHEI and foundations, and attractive PHEI fundraising themes or goals.

In summary of findings about donations to PHEIs made by Taiwanese

foundations, decision makers relied on social values to determine whether or not to

donate to PHEIs. They usually donated to enhance social justice and fairness. In other

words, higher education donations often took the form of valuable exchanges between

donors and PHEIs to balance the needs of both parties. The exchange of values taking

place between Taiwanese foundations and PHEIs has enriched Taiwan’s society. For

instance, many Taiwanese foundations invited PHEIs with departments and activities

related to foundation principles or programs to engage in specific themed programs to

209

benefit social welfare or public interest. According to the findings from the NSF survey

and the interviews with 21 top foundation administrators, PHEI FAs should integrate

their campus resources to coincide with the principles and activities at affluent

foundations in order to diversify the development of the PHEIs.

Chapter Summary

Corporations and foundations want and need various services from PHEIs; in turn

PHEIs need their support. In order to accommodate all parties, PHEI FAs should first of all familiarize themselves with corporate or foundation core values. Second, they must also be acquainted with their strongest academic and research resources and be able to transfer their strengths to corporations or foundations via practical means that can facilitate their progress. For example, Taiwanese corporate leaders want to be competitive in the market and eventually become market leaders. PHEI FAs can shape departments’ research and programs to accommodate corporate demands. Taiwanese foundations usually put social concerns or care for the disadvantaged, such as the poor or the disabled. Taiwanese foundations should develop and use the connections with student organizations and the related departments and colleges at PHEIs to fulfill their objectives.

The personal networks of PHEI FAs may be limited, but campus networks or connections are unlimited because each campus includes rich resources, especially for faculty members, and abundant sources that can be beneficial to society, especially the local community. These are the unlimited resources and source for expanding campus values and fundraising markets.

CHAPTER V: EXPLORING FINDINGS

Introduction

This study investigated three populations and one type of interaction among

them—donation—in order to inquire into corporate and foundation donors’ opinions

about and experiences with making contributions to Taiwan’s public high education

institutions (PHEIs). The three populations came from all PHEIs in Taiwan and a number

of corporations and foundations there. The purpose of this study was to understand

thoughts and attitudes toward donation behaviors on one side and fundraising techniques

on the other in order to test whether participants’ shared any opinions: If yes, what were

they, and if no, how did the thoughts of the participants differ? This study contributes to

determining how to close gaps between donors and recipient PHEIs and perhaps even to

finding some commonalities in their differences.

The first population comprised all PHEIs in Taiwan. In 2007 the Ministry of

Education (MoE) financially supported and assessed 57 PHEIs, but after 2008 MoE policy encouraging the merging and acquisitioning of similar PHEIs left 54 of them in operation. Nearly two thirds of the PHEI population was investigated with the National

Survey of Higher Education Institutions (NSH); investigation of the remaining PHEIs derived from Internet browsing of related information. Statistical analysis of the NSH revealed some relationships between PHEI fundraising performance and certain conditions, such as the number of full- and part-time professionals in charge of raising funds from the society at large.

210

211

The second population included corporate donors to PHEIs, some of whom came to the researcher’s attention through the snowball effect. The National Survey of

Corporations (NSC) was used to investigate decision-making processes and procedures that occurred when participating corporations contributed to PHEIs, and selected corporate representatives disclosed their opinions and experiences by responding to a number of interview questions. Thus, the NSC and an interview protocol were two important instruments for data collection in this study.

The third population included representatives of Taiwanese foundations, whose opinions were investigated with the National Survey of Foundations (NSF) and an interview protocol in a process similar to dealing with the corporate population. In total five research instruments provided a solid blueprint in theoretical and practical bases to understand the relationship between PHEIs and corporations or foundations.

Summary of Findings

The five research questions in this study yielded findings in six parts. Each population generated two kinds of answers: quantitative and qualitative findings. Thus, this section covers six parts to demonstrate each finding in accordance with each research question.

Taiwan’s PHEI Population

Quantitative Perspectives

The primary instrument used to investigate attitudes of fundraising administrators

(FAs) at PHEIs was the NSH. Its four sections were designed to determine how many

FAs serve PHEIs, what attitudes they have toward the 1996 government policy regarding

212

the self-sufficiency of Taiwan’s PHEIs, and what kinds of businesses or industries have

donated and are likely to donate in the future and to acquire a list of corporate and

foundation donors to their PHEIs. Some unique findings were acquired from this

population. First of all, the number of full- and part-time fundraising positions at PHEIs and the types of PHEI they serve reveal three significant factors influencing corporate and foundation donors to PHEIs. Second, as shown in chapter 4, in which the researcher discussed question 3 on the NSH, the top five businesses or industries donating to PHEIs are as follows: manufacturing (68.6%), construction (42.9%), finance and insurance

(54.3%), educational services (37.1%), and health and social welfare services (37.1%).

According to NSH question 4, PHEI FAs speculated that the top five industries or

businesses most likely to donate in the future are manufacturing (49.6%); construction

(42.9%); finance and insurance (40%); cultural, physical, and leisure services (40%); and

health and social welfare services (37.1%). These findings also answered the first

research question. Third, as for the 1996 self-sufficiency policy, almost three quarters of

PHEI participants agreed that higher education in Taiwan has moved into an the era of

fundraising; but they did not think that this policy has influenced Taiwanese corporations

and foundations.

Qualitative Perspectives

The last two questions on the NSH were open-ended and asked for PHEI FAs to

list corporate and foundation donors. Their answers appeared in Tables 4.6 and 4.7. The

top three businesses and industries to donate to PHEIs were manufacturing (35), finance

or insurance (10), and professional science and technological services (8) (Table 4.6). In

213

retrospect, Taiwan economic development emphasized manufacturing industries, but as

time passed, traditional industries, such as construction and automobile parts, were

replaced by technological industries, such as computer and laptop manufacturing and IC

producing and testing for several reasons. These include (a) the fast growth and application of the economics of global knowledge, (b) government financing and tax- exemptions for high-profit high-tech industrial R & D and for planting R & D in Taiwan, for encouraging these high-tech corporations in operating and producing R&D products in Taiwan, and (c) competition shelters that occur with a monopoly or oligopoly. These reasons also explain why many technological corporations represent the majority of those giving funds to PHEIs in Taiwan’s current fundraising society. For Taiwanese foundations, as shown in Table 4.7, the top five kinds of foundations that donated to

PHEI were educational and cultural foundations (21), cultural foundations (5), memorial foundations (5), religious foundations (3), and art foundations (3). In Taiwan, early- established foundations were allowed to have multiple functions or serve multiple fields; but later-established foundations focused on specific educational or cultural field.

Because many foundation founders were concerned with Taiwan’s educational developments and cultural continuity in perpetuity, many educational and cultural foundations support PHEIs for this purpose.

Taiwan’s Corporation Population

Quantitative Perspectives

The NSC was a questionnaire submitted to Taiwanese corporate personnel in order to investigate patterns or behaviors when donating to PHEIs. The researcher

214 attempted to understand their reasons or incentives, how they select PHEI recipients, evaluation points, purposes, strategies, methods of communication, interactive focuses, and the influence of governmental policy. All corporate participants’ responses associated with these variables on the NSC were displayed in Table 4.14. Regarding

Q2—What incentives motivate these groups to give funds to PHEI in Taiwan?—some answers follow. By ranking donation incentives according to strongest agreement among

NSC participants, social responsibility (85%) ranked first; good public relations (80%), second; and tax savings (75%), third. The other incentives—corporate development and pressure from business competitors—played less significant roles in corporate decisions about donating to PHEIs in Taiwan. Responses to Q3—How do these groups decide which PHEI to fund?—Table 4.14 demonstrated that an 80% majority of Taiwanese corporations preferred that public universities engage in an application process to secure financial support instead of communicating by other means, such as media (50%) or intermediaries (71%), to make their needs known. Q4 dealt with corporate evaluation of

PHEIs and their interactive focus on them. The researcher found that many corporations evaluate PHEIs in terms of their academic prestige (122/139), financial position

(119/139), and teaching, research, and service (115/139) as part of their decision making on the donation process. Interaction between corporate donors and PHEIs focused on the

PHEI president’s leadership ability (103/140), PHEI involvement in social services and charitable activities (116/140), the PHEI president’s governance blueprint (113/140), opportunities to build cooperation between the corporation and PHEI (95/140), and PHEI dedication to community service (99/140).

215

For Q4—How has corporate and foundation giving to PHEIs changed since the

1996 government policy was instituted?— 61% of the 141 corporate participants knew of

this policy. Additionally, the group that agreed with the ability of the policy to influence

many companies in their financial allocation (about 30%) is very similar in size to the

group that did not (about 32%). But half these 141 corporate respondents (50.4%)

maintained a positive attitude toward the policy, believing that it would ultimately

encourage Taiwanese corporations to become involved in higher education. As for the

performance of the policy, 45% of the 141 corporate respondents doubted the consequences of the policy for the following reasons: lack of governmental policy promotion (55.3%), lack of a tax-regulation supplement to support the policy (57.4%),

Taiwan traditional preference for donating to religious organizations instead of to institutions of higher learning (41.1%), and the belief that the Taiwan government should take full responsibility for higher education in Taiwan (40.4%).

Qualitative Perspectives

The researcher interviewed representatives from 27 corporations for this study.

Their responses to Q2 have been listed in Table H3 (See Appendix H), which contains 28 incentives for corporations to contribute funds to PHEIs. The 28 incentives have been divided into several categories. One involved corporate donors’ self-interest; for example, some corporate participants, especially those in high-tech biotech corporations or industries that might be supported by the Taiwan government in the future, planned to enhance their companies’ research and development (R & D). Another category involved the improvement of corporate manpower in both quality and quantity. For example, some

216 corporate participants wanted to improve their company product, service, and sales; so they required the PHEIs they funded to assist in the enhancement of their sales skills and the betterment of their service. One category dealt with maintaining or rebuilding the relationship between the company and society. For example, some corporate participants wanted to build public relations and create win–win situations for their corporations and society; to do so, they assumed social responsibility by donating to PHEIs and marketing their donation behaviors. The researcher has provided corporate participants’ thinking and donating experiences (see Table H3) to illustrate Taiwanese entrepreneurs’ behaviors surrounding PHEI donation for the purpose of developing a blueprint of their donation incentives in the next section, entitled Analysis of the Study Findings.

With regard to Q3, the researcher provides an approximate picture of and insight into decision-making processes and procedures used at Taiwanese corporations when managers consider donations to PHEIs (see Table H4). Almost 20 different kinds of solutions or perspectives were offered in response to this research question. The 27 corporate participants disclosed such points as corporate needs, alumni relationships, faith or preferences of top corporate managers, and networking. Two types of donation decision-making processes in practice have been discussed here. One entails the various active approaches to and searches for PHEIs that those corporations implement as they seek to contribute funds; the other entails passive approaches to PHEIs. The former is driven by corporate needs or demands. In other words corporate managers need technical support or product improvement and so actively search, compare, evaluate, and test related projects or skills at various PHEIs, ultimately choosing an appropriate PHEI and

217

forming a firm relationship with it. The latter, driven by corporate leaders’ preferences or

interests, involves interaction totally led by a PHEI, beginning with networking,

presenting its information to inspire or persuade a corporate leader, and ending with the

post-donation assessment. More detailed findings for this research question will be

presented in the next section, entitled Analysis of the Study Findings.

For Q 4, this study gives readers a reference point from which to understand the

workings of Taiwan’s governmental policy (see Table H4). The 1996 PHEI self- sufficiency policy may be a good one, but many corporate participants doubted its ability to yield effective results without supplemental policies or reforms to support it.

Participants offered 24 different comments on this policy, making the answer to research question 4 resemble a pro and con debate. Specifically, the pros or benefits include good and transparent interaction between corporations and PHEIs, helping PHEIs flexibly fundraise in society, instituting a competitive market organism to raise the academic value of PHEIs in society, and other pros discussed in the next section. The cons or negative results include the possible destruction of academic freedom at PHEIs under this policy, possible commission scandals resulting from PHEI fundraising, and other negative issues covered in the Analysis of the Study Findings. Fundamentally, the majority of all 27 corporate participants recognized the necessity and correctness of the

PHEI self-sufficiency policy because of international competition in higher education and globalization; the former pushes each government to highlight the core values and advantages of higher education in order to raise the image of national soft power in the world and to attract more international students in attending college or university in the

218 particular country, and the latter factor propels many governments to cooperate and compete with international businesses. Few of the 27 corporate interviewees, however, had positive expectations of this policy because of Taiwan’s shortsighted political environment and social culture, in which government policies are passively followed but policy their shortcomings are aggressively identified; therefore, good policies or institutions in the United States are often distorted when they are translated for use in

Taiwan.

For the last research question Q5—What factors or variables influence the PHEI fundraising network?—this study provides 30 different answers (see Table H5).

Generally speaking, the responses centered on the likelihood that the PHEI could provide value or effective technical knowledge, skills, concepts, programs, know-how, and creativity to support or help corporations to prevail in the market or enhance their name recognition in society. Types of businesses and industries are diverse and changing at a rapid rate. Leaders at PHEIs should be aware of the kinds of businesses or industries that are the mainstay in contemporary society and the world as well as in the future. And more than that, those leaders had better understand in advance which of them have more profitability in the market in order to have greater opportunity to reach fund sources at corporations and foundations.

Taiwan’s Foundation Population

Quantitative Perspectives

The NSF was a questionnaire designed to elicit responses from personnel at

Taiwanese foundations about the decision-making process surrounding donations to

219

PHEIs. Its purpose was, therefore, similar to that of the NSC. All foundation participants’

responses associated with the variables in the NSF were displayed in Table 4.20. As for

Q2—What incentives motivate these groups to give funds to PHEIs in Taiwan?—some

aspects have been explored in this section of the chapter. According to 76% of the

respondents, foundation principles or mission statements play an important role. In

contrast 80% of them disagreed that tax savings played a part in decisions to donate. Only

17% of the 99 NSF participants agreed that they were influenced to donate to higher

education by the donations given by other foundations, one of the reasons or incentives

they could have chosen on the NSF. More than 60% of the foundation participants agreed

that their donations to Taiwan’s higher education represented assuming social

responsibility. As for cultivating good public relations with the local community, 35% of

the foundation respondents regarded this incentive as a factor in their higher education

donation cases. To summarize, the statistical description of responses from personnel at

Taiwanese foundations demonstrates that they preferred to focus on specific issues of

public interest and minority groups, such as the elderly, the disabled, and the new

immigrant brides. For Q3—How do these groups decide which PHEIs to fund?—this

research indicates that foundation donations went through an appropriate process, such as

specific personal connections and proposal applications. For example, 53.5% of the NSF

respondents used connections with “specific intermediaries” as a key point in their higher education donation cases; 56.6% of the NSF respondents tended to accept college proposal applications as the standard process. The evaluation processes they used in determining recipients put emphases on campus academic prestige (58.8%); mission

220

statements (58.8%); quality of research, teaching, and service (60.8%); and financial

positions (56.7%). Two kinds of popular foundation donations are typically given to

PHEIs: scholarships (66.7%) and research endowments (34.3%). Similarly, 60.6% of

foundations assessed proposals from fund applicants.

For Q4—How has corporate and foundation giving to PHEIs changed since the

1996 government policy was instituted?—this study indicates, 62.6% of the 99

foundation participants were aware of the policy in Taiwan, but still one third were not

(see Table 4.20). The NSF also asked foundation administrators’ opinions regarding this policy. Few of them (15.6%) thought this policy influenced their guidelines for operation.

Similarly, only 13.5% doubted the impact of this policy on their financial allocation, and

11.5% of all the respondents expressed that the policy influenced the willingness of

Taiwanese foundations to donate to PHEIs. Just under 18% of the NSF respondents held

the opinion that corporate foundations were more inclined to donate to PHEIs because of

the government policy. Ironically, although Taiwan’s government implemented the

policy in 1996, a mere 23% of the NSF respondents maintained a positive attitude toward

it. Taiwanese foundations paid more attention to the development of higher education in

Taiwan. Nearly 30% of them commented that the implementation of this policy had been

inadequate, and the reasons for low performance of this policy were ineffective or

minimal promotion by the government (32.3%), lack of follow-up tax reforms to meet the

fiscal needs (28.1%), the Taiwanese traditional preference to donate to local religious

organizations over educational institutions (25%), and the popular belief that the

221 development of higher education was the responsibility of Taiwan’s government, not foundations (27.1%).

Qualitative Perspectives

Twenty-one foundation participants were interviewed for this study. Their responses to Q2 are listed in Table H7. As shown, 25 incentives came into play when foundations contributed to PHEIs, and they were similar to corporate contribution incentives to PHEIs except for government policies, more social responsibility, and diverse societal needs. In Taiwan direct governmental authorities such as MoE, MoI, and

MoEA control each foundation so that governmental policies directly or indirectly influence foundations’ operations, including their contributions to PHEIs. In addition, foundations’ established principles or mission or vision statements relate to social welfare, disadvantaged groups, or specific societal requirements, such as educational reform, so these requirements directly influence their contribution allocations to PHEIs.

The section entitled Analysis of the Study Findings includes future discussion.

For Q3, this research provides an approximate picture with clues to understanding decision-making processes and procedures followed by Taiwanese foundations when considering donation to PHEIs (see Table H8). Eleven different kinds of solutions or perspectives emerged. In Taiwan, few PHEIs actively reach out to a foundation to raise funds. The most popular methods used by foundations to donate to PHEIs include the following: foundations headquartered at corporations assigned to deal with PHEI donations, scholarships for college students, and research contests. From these 11 responses, four categories emerged to facilitate the analysis of the decision-making

222 processes applied by Taiwanese foundation when donating to PHEIs: If PHEI supply, such as projects or programs, meets foundation demand, then PHEIs can develop relationships with foundations and also good name recognition.

For Q4, this study gives readers a reference to understand the 1996 PHEI self- sufficiency policy instituted by the Taiwanese government (see Table H9). It was a workable policy, but many foundation participants questioned policymakers’ motivation, complaining of poor articulation and a rush to regulate without thorough debate or discussion and believing that the effect of this policy would be limited because of the lack of supplemental policies to support it. Table H9 shows 23 perspectives mentioned in the foundation participant interviews. Generally, the findings show that foundation participants regard this policy as do corporate participants, but foundation participants placed greater emphasis on social values, such as social equality in educational chances for children, than did corporate participants. Accordingly, because the social role of foundations is typically to allocate social resources fairly and righteously, foundation participants often view PHEI contributions as instruments for social justice and social equality.

As for the last research question (Q5), this study findings include all possible factors that emerged from the interviews with foundation representatives regarding the networking involved in PHEI fundraising (see Table H10). As a result of such networking, PHEIs could provide valuable resources to foundations to promote their principles, ideas, or themes in Taiwan’s society. Thirty-two factual answers from 21 foundation participants have been interpreted here and in the section entitled Analysis of

223

the Study Findings. Taiwanese foundations have multiple authorities to administer their

operations, including their headquarters for financial support, and local and central

government for supervision; thus, the main factors or variables to influence foundations

in giving funds to PHEIs naturally contain corporate views and modes and governmental

factors. Therefore, although a Taiwanese foundation participant was interviewed with

these research questions, she or he would answer from the perspectives of a

representative of two different types of organizations: corporate headquarters or social

organization. Moreover, foundation participants usually have stricter moral standards and

more critical viewpoints with which to assess each social behavior and transaction

involved in making a donation to a PHEI.

Analysis of Study Findings

Fundraising in Taiwan’s PHEIs

Because of the plentiful data and rich findings in this study, the analysis of findings has been divided into several parts beginning with PHEI fundraising in Taiwan.

Starting from the five research questions to analyze findings in the PHEI population in

Taiwan, PHEI FAs should note the following major factors that influence PHEI fundraising plans and performances: economic factors, developments in government higher education policy, changes in Taiwan’s culture and society, and the related research.

Relevant economic factors are global, national, and local in nature. PHEI FAs must monitor these three economic layers because each one has a cycle that is not necessarily synchronized with the others. Thus, when the global economic cycle

224 experiences a downturn, PHEI FAs should try to secure corporate funding from Taiwan’s domestic or local economy, which may be stronger, instead of international corporate funding, which may have been deeply impacted by the recessive global economic cycle.

By contrast, PHEI FAs should also take note of the market cycles of businesses or industries in order to develop a sense of when a cycle will swing in an upward direction.

For example, the NSH revealed that cultural, physical, and leisure services will be viable in the future; therefore, PHEI FAs should pay more attention to this business area and research alumni in these areas and corporations that do business in this area. Furthermore, the NSH showed that manufacturing and finance and insurance were the industries with the highest potential to donate to PHEIs; however, the 2008 global financial crisis inevitably caused PHEI FAs to transfer their fundraising targets from finance and insurance to technological or other specialty services.

As for government policies directing Taiwan’s higher education, PHEI FAs must maintain awareness of them because the FAs are after all government officials who must strictly obey those policies and regulations. Taiwan’s policy for higher education fundraising is surely moving in the direction of less control from the government and more involvement from society at large as in the USA. Taiwan’s government has enforced this policy since 1996, and it continues to influence higher education as the policy develops and is updated with additional regulations and acts. A case in point, the

2008 University Act required each PHEI in Taiwan to renew and update their PHEI organizational charts and regulations and even to encourage Taiwan’s society to donate to education, especially PHEIs. This policy continues to influence Taiwan’s higher

225 education and society; however, the performance of this policy will take PHEI FAs on a long journey that will extend far into the future.

PHEI FAs must carefully observe the development of the government policy in order to know in advance the intention and purpose of Taiwan’s lawmakers. For example, the ruling party in Taiwan at the time of this study preferred to cooperate with Mainland

China, so PHEI FAs should watch the interaction and regulations on both sides of the

Taiwan Strait as they design their higher education fundraising plan in accordance with government policy. If possible, Taiwan’s PHEI could seek funds from donors in

Mainland China to the extent that Taiwan’s government allows. According to the findings about the 1996 self-sufficiency policy derived from the NSH, almost three quarters of PHEI participants agreed that Taiwan’s PHEIs have entered an era of fundraising. In addition, FAs at PHEIs did not think that this policy has influenced

Taiwanese corporations and foundations, revealing two phenomena. First, many of them acknowledged the need to obey this policy, but they have not been forced to do so because the Taiwanese government lacks comprehensive regulations for PHEIs to follow.

It seems as if the government proposed an idea to have all PHEIs formulate their own ways to reach the government’s requirement without any constructive support for some weak PHEIs. Second, this finding disclosed that the MoE launched the 1996 policy without coordination with other government bureaus, leaving many obstacles for PHEI

FAs to overcome as they try to comply with this policy. In other words, this policy has been somewhat ineffective in reducing government financial pressure because of its lack of thoroughness. These two phenomena have resulted in a final expected consequence;

226 that is, everyone, including the government and Taiwanese people, regards this self- sufficiency policy as a very important effort, but it has not improved PHEI funding or even Taiwan’s higher education in general.

Many aspects of Taiwanese society are changing as the world becomes more competitive. In the West wealthy philanthropists commonly donate much of their wealth to colleges or universities. In Taiwan, a similar phenomenon occurred just before this writing. In 2007, the wealthiest entrepreneur in Taiwan announced that he would make a substantial donation to the PHEI that developed the best way to enhance research to fight cancer because two members of his family had died from the disease. After his announcement, several other famous entrepreneurs followed suit by donating to their alma maters; yet compared to donations to Taiwanese traditional faiths, those made to

PHEIs remained much smaller. Further promotion by more politicians and philanthropists is needed. The government has a responsibility to change the atmosphere surrounding social donation that favors folk religious temples to include the development of PHEIs.

Ultimately, the government and famous entrepreneurs will play an important role in changing the social donation culture in Taiwan from focus on the predominant folk superstition and religious faiths to the needs of developing PHEIs.

This study applied the theoretic conclusions of U. S. fundraising theories and practices to Taiwan’s society in order to understand Taiwan’s organizational donation behaviors and patterns as they relate to PHEIs. Based on this framework, the NSC and the NSF were constructed and administered to investigate Taiwan’s businesses and foundations, respectively. This section offers quantitative and qualitative perspectives on

227

Taiwanese top corporate managers or entrepreneurs to understand their incentives,

reasons, or the other factors in donating to PHEIs.

One of the findings discussed in chapter 4 is that Taiwanese businesspeople are

more willing and feel a greater sense of obligation to support PHEIs than foundation

personnel as shown on the NSH. According to Giving USA, generally speaking,

foundation giving to nonprofits totaled approximately 12% of yearly philanthropic

contributions, more than twice that of corporate giving to nonprofit organizations (about

5%) in the USA from 1999 to 2008. In other words, administrators of U. S. foundations

are more willing and feel a greater sense of obligation to support nonprofit organizations,

including PHEIs, than U. S. corporate leaders. This research finding demonstrates that

Taiwan’s philanthropic inclinations are the opposite of those in the United States.

The second significant finding emerging from the NSH is that the performance of

the full-time PHEI fundraising professionals is not necessarily better than that of part-

time fundraising staffs. The main reason involves organizational regulations at Taiwanese

PHEIs as well as the passage in 2008 of the University Act concerning professional

fundraising positions. The best PHEI in Taiwan—the National Taiwan University

(NTU)—finally hired its first real full-time fundraising administrators in 2008 to manage fundraising tasks for the NTU president.

Taiwan’s Corporate Donations to PHEIs

Quantitative Perspectives

This study indicates that Taiwanese entrepreneurs considered tax savings (TS), social responsibility, and building good public relations with a community as the three

228 primary incentives for their donations to PHEIs (see Table 4.27). In recent years increasing numbers of entrepreneurs seem to have taken corporate social responsibility

(CSR) into account at their companies. The growing awareness of CSR suggests that the purpose of the earned profits of an enterprise is not only to benefit the business itself but also to show concern about social welfare and public interest. Many Taiwanese businesspersons have gradually sensed that their enterprise capital and wealth derive from society, so they should return some of their wealth to society. While a nation or society is developing, its entrepreneurs tend to feel stronger CSR. As for the public relations-building (PR) factor revealed by the NSC, the public-relations issue has also become increasingly important for Taiwanese corporations, suggesting that each corporation should help take care of its community, including its residents, environment, and ecology; otherwise, it may encounter unexpected obstacles that influence its business. As for tax savings, the issue is to obtain practical gains directly from the government. The results of the NSC show that the majority of incentives or reasons for corporate donations to PHEIs are CSR, PR, and TS, unlike in the USA, where CSR, PR,

TS, corporate development, and pressure from competitors are the primary incentives.

The reason for this difference is that Taiwan’s corporate entrepreneurs did not regard company development as an incentive to donate to PHEIs because corporate development depends on society, not just on a PHEI that received their donation. Taiwan corporate respondents did not generally consider pressure from competitors in their decisions to donate to PHEIs except for very competitive industries, such as the LED industry. The foregoing descriptions covered corporate donation incentives to PHEIs; the next part

229

focuses on measuring corporate willingness (Yes, we donated/No, we did not) to give to

PHEIs. Several major factors used in the NSC measured each Taiwanese corporation’s

willingness (Yes/No) to donate to PHEIs. These factors included their reasons for

donating, how to select PHEI recipients, evaluation, purpose, strategy, means of

communication, interactive focus, governmental policy, and whether or not their mission

or vision statements mentioned public welfare or not. After analyzing by correlation

functions, the interactive focus factor was shown to have four subfactors significant in the

correlation relationship with corporate willingness (Yes/No) to donate to PHEIs. This

means that all interactive focuses and processes in a corporate donation to a PHEI play an

important role in the final decision. Therefore, PHEI FAs should take note of each step

when communicating or interacting with corporate donors. They should interact with

their corporate donors by focusing on cooperation or networking between the corporation

and the PHEI, noting, for example, whether or not corporate managers’ children study at

the particular PHEI.

Qualitative Perspectives

General responses for research questions 2 to 5 appear in the following paragraph.

By interviewing 27 corporate participants, the researcher found that incentives or reasons

to donate to PHEIs in Taiwan extend beyond the five basic reasons typical in the U. S. fundraising business. Taiwan’s corporate leaders donated to PHEIs for the same five basic reasons that Americans do as well as because of the following incentives: recruitment of human resources, cooperation between corporations and PHEIs, corporate image, and R & D. The interview process showed that (a) technological corporate

230

managers considered donations to PHEIs as one kind of investment in the company’s

recruitment of human resources and technical R & D and (b) managers of traditional

industries viewed giving to PHEIs as an opportunity for cooperation between

corporations and PHEIs. Especially for corporate groups, image is an invisible asset; so

entrepreneurs at some corporate groups traded donations to PHEIs for enhancement of

their corporate image. This research indicates three more incentives for corporate

donations to PHEIs, different from the five basic incentives that motivate donations in the

USA (see Table 4.27). These three are good karma, giving back to society, and giving

back to alma maters. Many Taiwanese entrepreneurs maintained conventional ideology in

dealing with their wealth, and that included giving back to alma maters to show gratitude or to pursue the rewards that will come to them during their later years or to benefit their children. This study also shows possible responses to research question 3 related to the perspectives of Taiwanese corporate managers (see Table 4.28). According to the economic principle of supply and demand, if corporate demands can be satisfied or solved by whatever the PHEI can supply, the corporation would donate to the PHEI. For instance, responses 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19 illustrate this condition (see

Table 4.28). In the other situation, networking or personal-relationship building is also a frequent and useful way to help corporations determine which PHEI should receive their donations. For example, answers 5, 6, 8, and 18 (see Table 4.28) related to this condition.

Other responses, such as 3, 4, 7, 11, and 15, demonstrate internal processes at corporations and traditional supporting principles for donations to PHEIs.

231

As for research question 4, this study indicates diverse but similar responses (see

Table 4.29). The 27 entrepreneurs in principle supported the PHEI self-sufficiency

policy, but most of them doubted that the preparation and execution methods and

strategies planned by the Taiwanese government could achieve the goal of this policy.

For example, responses 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 19, 20, and 21 (Table 4.29) made this point

very strongly. On the other side, some of these 27 corporate participants regarded this

policy as a global trend, causing Taiwan’s government to do whatever was needed to help

Taiwan’s HEIs compete with global universities.

As for research question 5, this research lists all 30 aspects factors or variables

held to influence PHEI fundraising networks (see Table 4.30). The most popular factors

were networking, recruitment of human resources, and corporate acquisition of know-

how and R & D from PHEIs; therefore, PHEI FAs should concentrate on these factors or

variables to construct their campus fundraising programs and guide their faculty research

in accordance with Taiwan’s corporate top managers’ expectations and corporate

development needs.

To explore research question 2, the researcher analyzed related study findings in

chapter 4, using two different qualitative methods. This study indicates incentives or

reasons Taiwanese corporations contributed to PHEIs (Table 4.27), and two qualitative

methods were used to analyze these findings and to explain motivations for Taiwanese

entrepreneurs’ donations to PHEIs. One was a traditional qualitative data analysis; the

other derived from existential phenomenology. The former was applied and yielded the

following qualitative perspectives.

232

Inside Factors Profit Tax surplus saving

Finance Human Human Recruiting Competition Workforc Marketing Strategies Competitors Business Pressure Karma Product Creation Short term Technical Sources Support Long term

Public Society Social Interests Corporate Public Responsibility Image Relation

Alumni PHEIs Giving back to Society Cooperation with other PHEIs Government

Outside Corporation– Factors PHEI–Government ti

Figure 5.1 Distribution of seven themes and short- and long-term incentives for donating

to PHEIs

This study indicates 11 major codes representing reasons or incentives for

contemporary enterprises in Taiwan to donate to PHEIs (see Table 4.26). Based on two

findings, Tables 4.26 and Table 4.27, the researcher developed to construct a figure

(Figure 5.1). Figure 5.1 demonstrates seven qualitative themes, which appear on the

233

vertical axis, intersect with time, which appears as a continuum along the horizontal axis,

to indicate entrepreneurs’ inclinations and intentions in giving to PHEIs in Taiwan.

The seven themes were divided into inside factors and outside factors. Inside

factors are finance, workforce, business, and resources. External factors include society,

PHEIs, and the government. Financial factors include tax saving and profit surplus.

Workforce factors consist of recruiting of human resources and human competition;

business factors are marketing strategies, pressure from peer competitors, and karma;

source factors are technical support and product creation. Societal factors include public

interest, social responsibility, corporate image, giving back to society, and public

relations; PHEI factors entail alumni relations and cooperation with other PHEIs;

governmental factors include cooperation among corporations, PHEIs, and the

government. The horizontal line represents the short- and long-term effects of donations.

This researcher indicates four characteristics of giving behaviors that occur when

Taiwanese corporations donate to PHEIs (see Figure 5.1). First of all, their managers have multiple reasons to give funds to PHEIs, a point disclosed by 27 corporate participants. For example, Participant V, a corporate vice president, stated:

Giving to PHEIs is like a very long-term investment, so more functions, reasons,

and expectations for higher education donation are natural and good. In other

words, more is better. In my field, good bilingual communication is so important

for our business, especially in English. Our corporation would like to give funds

to PHEIs to improve the capability of Taiwan’s college graduates to communicate

in English (interview, November 12, 2008).

234

Therefore, PHEI fundraising people should consider this issue when designing

fundraising plans or strategies for attracting or appealing to Taiwanese entrepreneurs’

attention or interest. In other words fundraisers whose plans appeal to multiple interests

will have greater access to entrepreneurs.

The second feature is that Taiwanese corporate decision makers usually care

about the responses of Taiwan’s people, especially with regard to PHEI donations. Thus,

the larger population plays an important role in their giving to PHEIs. Accordingly, this

research indicates five major enterprise incentives for donating to PHEIs, such as public

interest, corporate image, and social responsibility, which relate to Taiwan’s society (see

Figure 5.1). Regarding people’s attitudes toward corporate giving, Participant Q (2007), a gas station manager, said the following:

Each educational donation should stem from a good behavior, but if some people

in society criticize your donation, doubting your giving motivations or thinking

your reasons are not what you said, the value of your donation is debased; and the

meaning of your donation is diminished (interview, December 5, 2007).

Another interviewee, Participant Y, a female president of an import business, firmly stated:

If people believed your donation to a PHEI was too much like a business

transaction, not only would your corporation be shamed for such a donation, but

the PHEI that received it would also be disgraced all over Taiwan (interview,

December 26, 2007).

235

To avoid this type of unpleasant situation, PHEI fundraisers ought to build a strong network with Taiwan’s mass media and use their communication powers to persuade or inspire specific, targeted Taiwanese enterprisers to support the PHEI with donations.

The third feature of Taiwanese corporate donations to PHEIs is the sacrifice of current or short-term profits in order to obtain long-term benefits, including visible or invisible benefits. This characteristic seems like many rational capital investment strategies. Participant Q explained a PHEI donation as in terms of

an intentional and temporary loss first, but following that loss, the donor legally

anticipates visible or invisible returns in the future, such as earning a good

reputation for the donor or the donor’s descendants or offspring so they can take

advantage of running for political office opportunities in the future. (interview,

December 5, 2007).

Chinese traditional philosophy has influenced many Taiwanese entrepreneurs’ educational donations. In particular the concept of karma (see Figure 5.1) is similar a

Chinese custom: Doing good on earth will result in a good afterlife. Many traditional industrial corporate leaders still keep Taiwanese traditional philosophy rooted in their minds. For example, Participant B stated: “Many corporate bosses or top managers in traditional Taiwanese industries have applied conventional ideology in their decisions to donate to PHEI(s) or other educational institutions like the elementary, middle, or high schools they attended before” (interview, March 3, 2008).

Participant K (2008), one of the corporate interviewees, who is a president of an energy-saving corporation, shared his perspective about this feature, stating:

236

A lot of Taiwan’s small to mid-sized corporate leaders give funds to PHEIs in

exchange for visible or invisible returns in the future for their businesses or for

their descendents. They equate educational donation behaviors with depositing

money in Taiwan’s PHEIs in order to earn some interest in the future. (interview,

February 22, 2008).

PHEI fundraisers should combine the two features—the rational investing factor and the emotional, cultural, and social factor—in the fundraising plans or protocols so that more

Taiwanese corporate managers would agree to give funds to PHEIs.

The next section includes qualitative findings derived from the existential phenomenological method. Fundamentally, four basic procedures ought to be followed existential phenomenology: (a) formulation of the problem and question or the phenomenon, (b) data-generating or collecting descriptions, (c) data study procedure or explication, and (d) presentation of results or formulation (von Eckartsberg, 1986).

The phenomenon that drew the researcher’s attention was that some entrepreneurs in Taiwan donated to educational institutions that have enjoyed strong name recognition in the culture. The researcher was curious about reasons the companies donate to so- called better educational institutions and not to institutions in need. The researcher explored the research question through existential phenomenology to understand and explicate reasons behind this social phenomenon. Each donation behavior involved social–psychological factors, such as interpersonal relationships, social cognition, prosocial behavior, and group behavior; therefore, it was necessary to apply the concepts of social psychology as a study baseline to explore the research question.

237

In the form of justification statements, 27 entrepreneurs answered two questions

regarding donations, thus generating data:

1. When entrepreneurs contemplate donating to an education institution, what

motivates them to contribute to PHEIs?

2. Do these considerations, as revealed by methods of existential

phenomenology and social psychology, involve altruism or egoism as

motivation for donating to the educational institutions?

The researcher attempted to determine the considerations behind corporate

participants’ interpretations of their donation incentives. Only by understanding these

considerations and their real prosocial attitudes toward education donations can this

research question be explained and articulated in terms of existential phenomenology, not

by elegant interpretations and communications.

Before filtering the data in this study, the researcher sought to understand each of the corporate donation incentives in the U.S. fundraising market and found important

points related to each incentive as hypothetical identification for this existential

phenomenological study. These require explication as follows. Fundamentally, each

incentive to donate includes seven considerations to support or manage it. They are (a)

target, (b) role in corporate profits, (c) expectation with regard to corporate profit, (d)

expectation of repayment, (e) long- or short-term expectation, (f) incentive sensibility,

and (g) media appeal. Take, for example, corporate development as an incentive. The

target of the incentive is the corporation itself; the donor expects benefits to increase and

to expand corporate profit potential. The corporate manager expects to reach goals in the

238 short-term, perhaps in the form of a visible asset, such as media attention. By contrast as an incentive, social responsibility operates differently with regard to the seven considerations. The researcher used the same concepts (see Table 5.1) as a framework to analyze the study findings in chapter 4. The researcher has eliminated redundancy and reduced the original findings. Thus, 19 major giving incentives have been displayed as follows.

Table 5.1 Seven Considerations for Five Basic Donation Incentives in the U.S.A. repaym- Attitude toward Incentive media Considerations Target Profit change Terms ent profits sensibility circulate If add Corporation welfare, Self Increase Yes Expand Long/short Visible development Yes; if not, No Tax saving Self Lower decrease Yes Expand Short-term Visible No Competitor Self/ Keep the same Yes/No Protect Long/short Invisible Unknown pressures Others or increase Social Others Decrease No Shorten Long-term Invisible Yes responsibility Public relations Others Decrease No Shorten Long-term Invisible Yes

Table 5.2 Major Taiwanese Corporation Giving Incentives 1. Corporate Development 2. Improvement of the Environment; Reduction of Pollution 3. Public Welfare/Interest 4. Tax Savings 5. Human Recruiting 6. Cooperation between Corporation and PHEI 7. Social Responsibility 8. Good Karma 9. Alumni Giving 10. Corporate Image 11. Corporate Interests 12. Corporate R&D 13. Giving Back to Society 14. Competitive Ability 15. Boss’s Preferences 16. Market Strategy 17. Peer or Competitor Pressure 18. Public Relations 19. Corporation–PHEI–Government Cooperation

239

The researcher has used the framework (see Table 5.1) to examine Taiwan’s data

(Table 5.2). The examination outcome appears as follows. Twelve of 19 different

donation incentives have been classified in terms of egoism, two in terms of egoism or

altruism, and only five kinds of donation incentives in terms of altruism (see Table 5.3).

According to the foregoing existential phenomenological approach and the seven

considerations for each educational donation incentive, the hypothetical identification of

the phenomenon of corporate preference to donating to supposedly better schools should

be a valid identification and description.

This study explained, more or less, one social phenomenon in Taiwan regarding

entrepreneurs’ attitudes and perceptions of education donation—why did they donate to

so-called better universities or schools? This study produced the following results: First of all, this existential phenomenology analysis demonstrates percentages of two categories (egoism or altruism) to express the considerations behind donation incentives or reasons for corporate donation to education in Table 5.3.

The synthetic description of the reasons Taiwanese corporate managers like to

donate to better education institutions emerged as follows: Taiwanese corporations may

appear to donate to better education institutions because of social psychological factors,

such as humanitarian values, reciprocity, and gratitude; but the most important factors

behind donation incentives are considerations supported by two categories of incentives:

egoism and altruism. This explains why the majority of Taiwanese corporations prefer to

donate to better education institutions instead of education institutions in need.

240

Table 5.3 Seven Considerations Underlying Incentives for Corporate Donations to Taiwan’s PHEIs Profit Attitude toward Media Major Incentives Target Repay Terms Sensibility change profits coverage If add Corporate Long welfare, development Self Increase Yes Expand its profit Visible or short yes; if not, (Egoism) no Tax savings Lower or Self Yes Expand its profit Short Visible No (Egoism) decrease Remain Competitor pressures Self or the same Long Yes Protect its profit Invisible Unknown (Egoism) others or in- or short crease Social responsibility Others Decrease No Reduce its profit Long Invisible Yes (Altruism) Public relations Others Decrease No Reduce its profit Long Invisible Yes (Altruism) Improvement of Environment; Reduction of Others Decrease No Shorten its profits Long Invisible Yes Pollution (Altruism) Public Welfare Others Decrease No Reduce its profits Long Invisible Yes (Altruism) Recruitment of Human Resources Self Increase Yes Expand its profits Short Visible No (Egoism) Cooperation Between Corporation and Self Increase Yes Expand its profits Short Visible No PHEI (Egoism) Good Karma Self Decrease Yes Reduce its profits Long Visible No (Egoism) Alumni Giving Self Decrease Yes Reduce its profits Long Visible Yes (Egoism) Corporate Image Self Increase Yes Expand its profits Long Visible No (Egoism) Corporate Interests Self Decrease No Reduce its profits Long Visible Yes (Egoism/Altruism) Corporate R&D Self Increase Yes Expand its profits Short Visible No (Egoism) Giving Back to Others Decrease No Reduce its profits Long Invisible Yes Society (Altruism) Competitive Ability Self Increase Yes Expand its profits Short Visible No (Egoism) Boss’s Preferences Self or Yes or Unkno (Egoism/Altru- Unknown Unknown Unknown No Others No wn ism) Company–PHEI– Government Self Increase Yes Expand its profits Short Visible Yes Cooperation (Egoism) Market Strategy Self Increase Yes Expand its profits Short Visible No (Egoism)

241

Table 5.4 Categories of Education Donations Incentives Explaining Why Companies Donate to So-Called Better Schools in Taiwan Categories of education donations incentives Percentages Egoism 63.15 Altruism 26.26 Egoism/Altruism 10.59

So far, this discussion has focused on Q2 but at this point turns to the other research questions. As for exploring the study findings to Q3, the study findings indicate two major categories: Some companies actively searched PHEIs’ specific programs to give them funds, and some firms were passively inspired by PHEIs to contribute funds

(see Table H4). Because some Taiwanese corporations have strong needs in skills or in the support or enhancement of resources, they aggressively engage in networking to find people and resources at PHEIs to fulfill those needs. These corporations typically identify experts in specific areas through their acquaintances or networks. They compare advantages and disadvantages associated with each, evaluate each recommendation, engage in a trial period of cooperation with the PHEI, and finally enter a loyalty commitment to cooperate with each other for a long-term relationship. For example,

Participant A (2008), a former president of an airline, explained how a corporation chose a PHEI to receive a donation. He said:

My company’s professional managers look to PHEIs to assist with corporate

needs, fill any lack in product materials or human resources, etc. . . . The most

important factor to donate to PHEIs was whether or not the PHEI engages in

research projects that could meet corporate demands in a timely manner (inerview,

January 17, 2008).

242

By contrast the motivation of some companies to donate to PHEIs is passive.

Their managers are attracted by the ideas or concepts or strategies of a PHEI and then fully support this PHEI’s program or projects by giving funds. For instance, Participant R

(2008), the president of an IC corporation, told the researcher about his company’s donation. He said:

I gave funds to my alma mater because the alumni association informed me about

a movement on campus to encourage college students to pursue a healthy lifestyle,

so I donated about NT$ 500,000 (equivalent to US$15,200) in the name of my

company to support my alma mater (interview, March 6, 2008).

The other case is that of Participant L (2008), a vice CEO of a computer corporation in Taiwan, who donated to his alma mater. He stated:

My alma mater informed me that the university’s auditorium was too old to use

any more. The campus had a fundraising activity to rebuild it. Because I had a

special feeling and love for this auditorium, I donated a lot of money to support its

renovation (interview, February 15, 2008).

These study findings indicate that the primary source of PHEI funding is alumni giving (see Tables 4.26 and Table G4). In addition, any PHEI with a good reputation, name recognition, or a high level of expertise in a particular professional field have more opportunities to raise funds from the general population.

As for analyzing the study findings emerging from research question 4, pros and cons of the 1996 PHEI self-sufficiency policy were identified by Taiwanese entrepreneurs. On the pro side this policy lets (a) PHEIs build direct and transparent

243 interactions with corporations, (b) knowledge from PHEIs circulate quickly and easily, (c)

PHEIs implement a market organism, changing their funding sources from single to plural, (d) PHEIs spread funding risks over a society, (e) a society allocate social resources in balance, fairness, and justice, (f) the government release itself of financial burdens, and (g) PHEIs improve their ability to meet social needs.

On the con side this policy allows (a) businesses and industries to control academic freedom, (b) commission scandals in PHEI fundraising to arise or prevail in higher education, (c) the government to rid itself of the responsibility to fund PHEIs, a responsibility that it should maintain, and (d) only PHEIs with good name recognition to enjoy the fruits of this policy while those without good name recognitions suffer the difficulty of fundraising in society at large. This conclusion accompanies the findings in

Chapter four (Table 4.26), revealing a fact or a phenomenon, that is, all Taiwanese corporation leaders are concerned with how the government performs or activates this policy to reach or accomplish its goals, not with the reasons the government enacted this policy. This study indicates three themes that emerged from this study: official budget systems, campus funds, and altruistic investment in colleges (see Table 4.26). Twenty- seven corporate participants emphasized its critical influence over the potential and capability of Taiwan’s higher education in worldwide competition and development.

After all, effective performances and governances for PHEI campus funds become the most important issues.

As for analyzing findings regarding with the last research question, this research presents a useful base and also shows the complexity and diversity of Taiwan’s society

244

(see Table 4.30). Thirty diverse responses to this question have been distilled into eight main factors: characteristics of Taiwanese entrepreneurs, corporate financial position, corporate work force, corporate developmental resources, governmental policies, social interactions, PHEI fundraising capability and quality, and other economic factors. This study provides the blueprint of the answer to research question 5: What factors or variables influence the PHEI fundraising network in Taiwan? (See Table 4.26 and Figure

5.1).

These study findings show the microscopic and macroscopic perspectives of

Taiwanese entrepreneurs as they consider donations to PHEIs (see Tables 4.26, Table

4.30, and Figure 5.1). Because PHEI fundraising activities are in some ways an enactment of the supply and demand theory in economics, these two perspectives could explain what real factors or variables influence Taiwanese PHEI fundraising networks.

Microscopic perspectives comprise characteristics of Taiwanese entrepreneurs, corporate financial positions, corporate human powers, and corporate developmental resources

(Table 4.30) as well as internal factors (Figure 5.1). Four of the five major codes (Table

4.26) are associated with the microscopic view. Macroscopic perspectives cover governmental policies, social interactions, PHEI fundraising capability and quality, and other economic factors (Table 4.30), external factors (Figure 5.1), and one of the five major codes (Table 4.26). These factors or variables could be divided into three aspects: economic, cultural, and governmental. The economic aspect entails global, national, or local economic fluctuations and even different industries’ cycles that influence fundraising outcomes at PHEIs. Thus, PHEI fundraisers should be aware of and alert to

245

the situations of different industries. The cultural aspect involves traditional concepts and

customs in Taiwan; its societal network or relationship building are important triggers to

Taiwanese entrepreneurs’ decision-making processes when considering donating to

PHEIs. The governmental aspect includes the possibility of the Taiwan government fixing the current tax and accounting regulations to encourage more entrepreneurs’ giving funds to PHEIs or private universities. If the government can do so, the 1996 PHEI self-

sufficiency policy would have a positive effect on PHEI funding performances.

Taiwan’s Foundation Donations to PHEIs

Quantitative Perspectives

This study indicates that Taiwanese foundation managers considered their

foundation principles and the assumption of additional social responsibility through

donating to PHEIs as the two primary incentives for donating (see Table 4.20). This study

indicates that ratios for only these two incentives (agree/disagree) were greater than 1

(Table 4.20). Thus, among Taiwan’s foundations few managers were concerned with making donations to PHEIs, except for scholarship support for outstanding college students from poor families. They usually had specific principles to serve specific groups, such as elementary schools or suburban schools, or they often had a specific theme or topic to develop, such as robotics competitions. Such subjects and targets of foundation funding fully reveal a foundation’s objective: bearing social responsibility. The above descriptions are associated with exploring foundation incentives to donate to PHEIs. The next part focuses on measuring their willingness to give to PHEIs (Yes, we donated/No, we did not). Several major factors emerging from the NSF measured each Taiwanese

246

foundation’s willingness (Yes/No) to donate to PHEIs, factors similar to those

demonstrated in the NSC. After analysis by correlation functions, the strategy factor (S)

had four subfactors significant in the correlation relationship with foundation managers’

willingness to donate to PHEIs (Yes/No). All strategies associated with foundation

donations to PHEIs play an important role in the final decision; therefore, PHEI FAs

should notice in advance their foundation donors’ strategies. They should focus on long-

term relationship building and evaluation with Taiwanese foundations through frequent

and formal meetings.

Qualitative Perspectives

By interviewing 21 foundation participants, the researcher found that some

incentives or reasons to donate to PHEIs in Taiwan do not belong to the basic five reasons typical in the U. S. fundraising market. Taiwan’s foundations donated to PHEI for those basic five reasons, except the public relation incentive; in addition they were

motivated by the following incentives: recruitment of human resources and foundation- established principles (see Table 4.35). Taiwanese foundations followed the related government regulations to establish a general or specific principle to provide services for

Taiwan’s society, so their principles usually covered the area of public relations already.

Thus, it was unnecessary to mention this incentive again in the NSF investigation. Some foundations in Taiwan must recruit human resources for their parent corporations, so the

recruitment of human resources was significant as a reason for donating. This study also

indicates the other two reasons for foundation donations to PHEIs: giving back to society

and giving back to alma maters (see Table 4.35). Top administrators at Taiwanese

247 foundations had conventional thoughts about allocating their wealth that included giving back to their alma maters or to society as a show of gratitude. This study shows 21 foundation participants’ responses to research question 3 (Table 4.36). Four paths for foundations to take in their decisions about which PHEIs to fund. Alma mater connections were the most popular path, and another was related departments or research projects at the PHEI matching or attracting the focus of the foundation. Another was government policies or mandates to fund a PHEI. Fourth, some foundations provided scholarships to college students. In fact, the responses of representatives of Taiwanese foundations (Table 4.36) to research question 3 were similar to those of corporate representatives (Table 4.28) because they often obeyed or followed decisions made at parent companies although they usually concentrated on specific charitable areas or groups. In answer to research question 4, twenty-one foundation participants offered 23 different answers. Each foundation participant criticized this policy from various perspectives, so the number of their answers was greater than the total number of foundation participants; however, they usually relied on social justice and welfare to judge this policy, differing from Taiwanese corporate representatives’ responses. As for this question—What factors or variables influence the PHEI fundraising network?—

Table 4.38 listed name recognition of the PHEI, tax savings, alumni giving back to alma maters, social responsibility, enhancement of foundation image, recruitment of human resources, multi-networking among PHEIs and foundations, and attractive PHEI fundraising themes or goals.

248

Chapter Summary

The mixed methodology investigation produced a statistical analysis of quantitative data from Taiwanese corporations that bore no relation to the five basic donation incentives typical in American fundraising theory: good effect on future marketing, tax-savings, social currency, good public relations, and social responsibility.

In Taiwan, only tax savings was shown significantly to affect corporate donations to

PHEIs (N=141, ρ= .271, p = .001< α = .01) (See Table 4.16). Only social responsibility significantly influenced foundation giving to PHEIs in Taiwan (N=99, ρ= -.346, p =

.000< α= .01) (See Table 4.22). In contrast, the qualitative investigation revealed that in addition to the basic five American incentives, Taiwanese corporate decision makers considered related future development factors, such as R & D for products, services, and skills as well as recruitment of human resources, the enhancement of corporate image, and so forth as important incentives for giving to PHEIs (See Table 4.27), very similar to corporate donation incentives. In providing funds for PHEIs, Taiwanese foundation decision makers furthermore take into account enhancing and guiding social values and atmosphere through the various principles upon which the foundations were established,

(See Table H7).

CHAPTER VI: DISSERTATION CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, SUGGESTIONS

FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Conclusion

This study originated with ambiguous ideas but concluded with rich, valuable data and findings for sole purpose of constructing an articulated connection for PHEI fundraising and private organization donation. Referencing the fundamental concepts and theories of American fundraising, the researcher developed the NSH, NSC, and NSF to

investigate respectively all Taiwanese PHEIs, partial samples of corporations and

foundations in Taiwan. In addition, the qualitative interview constituted one research design in this study. Before inquiring into these three populations, the researcher anticipated that donation behaviors in Taiwan’s organization would differ somewhat from those in the United States of America, in particular that Taiwan’s PHEI fundraising

conditions and factors would differ from American fundraising systems. Data collection

for this study was challenging. Eventually, the researcher met with 31 PHEI fundraisers

for the NSH investigation and interviewed 48 corporate or foundation leaders to acquire

qualitative data as well as to ask as many of them as possible to complete the NSC and

NSF. These research data were analyzed with SPSS and general qualitative techniques.

Ultimately, the findings of this investigation resembled the researcher’s original

expectations. The fundraising environment in education in Taiwan differs from that in the

USA. According to the findings from the NSH, Taiwan’s higher education has entered

the era of the fundraising organism, and interactions among PHEIs and corporations and

foundations have become more frequent and diverse than in the past. According to one

249

250 finding resulting from Q1, college and university fundraisers usually target the more profitable industries, such as technology, finance, and insurance, because they donate the majority of funds to PHEIs. Therefore, PHEI fundraising administrators and staffs should determine which industries or businesses are currently profitable and will remain so in the future.

According to findings from the NSC and NSF as well as all 48 interviews,

Taiwanese corporations and foundations exhibit giving incentives similar to those in the

USA but demonstrate cultural variables affecting their donation decisions. For example, in comparing Taiwanese corporations and foundations, the researcher found that the former concentrate on and emphasize the creation of company value in giving to PHEIs; the latter focus on the maintenance of social value and justice by funding PHEIs.

Understanding these differences, PHEI fundraising practitioners can easily design workable strategies to capture the attention of Taiwanese corporations or foundations.

Moreover, networking also plays an important influence in PHEI fundraising in Taiwan.

Thus, PHEI fundraising practitioners should maintain and expand their networking capabilities in order to accumulate networking functions and effects. Government policy also plays a critical role in the PHEI fundraising because all PHEIs in Taiwan must abide by governmental policies and regulations. The investigation of Q5 yielded seven factors as shown in Figure 5.1, which demonstrate conditions and circumstances of behaviors of

Taiwanese corporations and foundations when giving to PHEIs.

Based on the analysis of the rich research findings in this study, the PHEIs, corporations, and foundations resemble the legs of a triangle. PHEI FAs are at the center

251

of the triangle as they attempt to build rich and frequent interactions among the three

populations in order to increase their opportunities to receive funds from them. Although corporations and foundations will always constitute major financial resources in society,

PHEI FAs should seek to make connections in the future with other groups or social organizations in Taiwan, such as half-government–half-private agricultural associations, professional or specialty associations or clubs, to help fulfill needs or requests. To do so,

PHEI FAs should create related databases or similar data tanks to expand their networking outreach. Taiwan’s society is changing and developing, so network accumulation and expansion done by each PHEI FA are the most critical parts of their potential fundraising success. A Chinese proverb teaches that rich networking will naturally produce rich capital. This study, in fact, provides useful references and key points for PHEI FAs to explore their professional fundraising competition in Taiwan’s society or even globally; however, each population has unique characteristics and tendencies, so PHEI FAs must understand these and then design an appropriate plan to approach with a lower risk of rejection. For example, top corporate managers or entrepreneurs usually hope that multiple functions or advantages will be gained from a donation to a PHEI; therefore, PHEI FAs should plan ahead in this direction to design fundraising plans to fulfill the demands of Taiwan’s entrepreneurs. As for the Taiwanese foundation population, many Taiwanese foundations collaborate with PHEI student organizations, so PHEI FAs should integrate Taiwanese foundation sources to make connections with student organizations.

252

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, the NSC and NSF sample sizes were too small to represent the larger corporate and foundation populations in Taiwan. At best, these investigations could represent the researcher’s networking or outreach population.

Second, the sample selections for the NSC and the NSF revealed some irregularities. One such irregularity derived from different corporation types, such as small to middle- sized companies and corporate groups. Specifically, some completed NSCs came from Rotary

International. The participants may all have had corporate backgrounds, but corporate groups donate to PHEIs for different reasons. The other irregularity came from corporate or foundation participants’ individual and personal opinions and their organizations’ policies regarding their PHEI donation experiences. Some of them expressed individual opinions, not official corporate positions; other samples came from corporate directors in charge of public affairs and the press, so their opinions may have been the official positions held by their companies. The researcher had to combine the opinions of these participants for the sake of the analysis; therefore, this study contains some irregularities that result from the diverse sample group.

Third, this study design included survey and interview strategies, which had conflicts in results or consequences. For example, the public-relations factor on the NSC played an important role, but in the corporation interview, just one participant mentioned

it in a short conversation. Another example is the cooperation between corporations and

PHEIs. It was an interactive focus according to the NSC, but it became a significant

incentive in the interviews with corporate participants. These conflicts disclose that the

253

survey design needs to correlate further with Taiwanese entrepreneurs’ understanding and

perception of donations to education.

Fourth, this study borrowed the basic five reasons underlying fundraising in the

USA to design the NSC and NSF without considering cultural and racial differences

between Taiwan and the USA. Thus, these differences caused Taiwanese NSC, NSF, and

interview participants to misunderstand some elements of the survey content. For

example, some Taiwanese entrepreneurs viewed social responsibility and public relations

as the same concept; some of them did not want to express their real thoughts about tax

savings because they were afraid Taiwan’s government might audit their accounting reports. Some did not discuss this factor because many Taiwanese see tax savings as a business crime. Cultural and racial differences could interfere with the accurate meaning

conveyed in the NSC and NSF. Fifth, the researcher requires more training in the

practical skills needed for effective surveys and interviews with professionals. The lack

of professional research skills may have hindered the efficiency and effectiveness of this

study to some degree.

Suggestions for Further Research

First of all, further study in PHEI fundraising in Taiwan should focus on specific

groups and their long-term interactions with PHEIs. Targeting several groups in a

business or industry will help PHIE FAs maintain a firm understanding of the features of

each business or industry, their characteristics, traits, and cycles or rules. Second, future

researchers should investigate the interaction of PHEI FAs with other entities, such as

philanthropic clubs, to complete the entire picture of the fundraising market for Taiwan’s

254

higher education. This study strongly encourages Taiwan’s government to make greater

contributions in this field, including monetary budget allocation and improvements in the

related regulations, for the sake of Taiwan’s children.

Directions for Future Research

Future research on incentives for corporate giving will likely follow three main directions. First of all, deep exploration of each incentive underlying corporate donation will be necessary in order to understand the decision-making process behind corporate giving. The research may relate to organizational behavior, organizational psychology, and other knowledge relating to the social sciences. Hence, research results and findings will assist fundraising practitioners in planning more precise fundraising marketing projects and methods to encourage corporate giving. Second, a study of the correlation among all incentives for corporate giving is vital so that scholars can build a quantitative model in order to forecast precisely whether or not one company or organization will donate as well as to predict approximately how much such an institution will donate.

Through quantitative analysis, researchers can translate corporate donation behavior into a predictable value. Third, future researchers can focus attention on applying U. S. systems and theories of corporate giving to other nations or societies. Knowledge of the

American experience will help these nations enact a systematic network for domestic philanthropy. In addition, these applications will help other countries consider and plan philanthropic mechanisms appropriate for their society.

Creating a good base for foundations and PHEIs is a crucial task for educational fundraising practitioners, and advance preparation is necessary. For instance, innovation

255 is a key concept for both institutions. Foundations should develop innovative grant- making processes, not only to meet social and economic challenges but also to attract more capable applicants (Bernholz, 1999). By the same token HEIs should also continue to develop innovative research and projects to meet the needs of society, business, and industry. Future research regarding foundations and higher education must head in this direction in order to meet the demands of both institutions. Knowledge of trends and patterns in foundation funding is also necessary for HEI fundraisers. If they know such information in advance, they can suggest to their universities or colleges which areas or fields are worth developing and determine the best ways to obtain grants from foundations, making an investigation of trends or patterns in foundation funding a valuable topic for further research.

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A

NATIONAL SURVEY OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUIONS IN TAIWAN (NSH)

258

National Survey of Public Higher Education Institutions in Taiwan (NSH)

1. Does your college have fundraising staff? [ ] No. [ ] If yes, please describe the fundraising staff Number of People Name of Unit Full time Part time

2. Taiwan’s government has encouraged PHEIs to raise funds from private enterprisers and corporations and foundations in Taiwan since 1996. As a PHEI FA what do you think about Taiwan’s 1996 PHEI self-sufficiency policy? Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), No Comment (NC), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD)

SA A NC D SD a. This policy influences all fields and areas of industries and businesses in Taiwan, including small and mid-sized enterprises. ------1 2 3 4 5 b. The policy has profitable impact on large-scale corporations, syndicates, or conglomerations, not for small and mid-sized enterprises. ------1 2 3 4 5 c. This policy lacks supporting laws and regulations such as tax reforms to corporate donations to PHEI. ------1 2 3 4 5 d. It has pushed Taiwan’s higher education to enter an era of fundraising. ------1 2 3 4 5

3. Since 1996 what kinds of businesses and industries have donated to the PHEI where you work now? Please check all that apply [_] Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries [_] Mining and Quarrying [_] Manufacturing [_] Water, Electricity, and Gas [_] Construction [_] Retail and Wholesale [_] Lodging and Restaurants [_] Transportation and Communication [_] Finance and Insurance [_] Real Estate and Leasing [_] Professional Science and Technical Services [_] Education Services [_] Medical Health and Social Welfare Services [_] Culture, Sport, and Leisure Services [_] Other Services

259

[_] Unclassified 4. In the future what kinds of businesses and industries are likely to donate to the PHEI for which you now work? [_] Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries [_] Mining and Quarrying [_] Manufacturing [_] Water, Electricity, and Gas [_] Construction [_] Retail and Wholesale [_] Lodging and Restaurants [_] Transportation and Communication [_] Finance and Insurance [_] Real Estate and Leasing [_] Professional Science and Technical Services [_] Education Services [_] Medical Health and Social Welfare Services [_] Culture, Sport, and Leisure Services [_] Other Services [_] Unclassified 5. Did your institution benefit from corporate giving? [_] If yes, please continue to 5.1 as follows [_] If no, please skip to question 6 5.1 Please list companies that donated to the PHEI you serve. Name of company The purpose of the donation

6. Did your institution benefit from foundation giving? [_] If yes, please continue to 6.1 as follows [_] No. 6.1 Please list foundations that donated to the PHEI you serve. Foundation’s title The purpose of donation

APPENDIX B

台灣公立大學院校問卷調查(NSH)

261

台灣公立大學院校問卷調查(NSH)

請受訪者於下列問題圈選或打勾貴校名稱______完全不同意 1. 貴校有幾位專職或兼職募款人員? 完全同意不予置評不同意專職____人職稱______同意兼職____人職稱______

2. 台灣政府已於民國八十五年逐年實施鼓勵公立大專院校自行向社會界企業及基金會募款政策 : a. 此政策影響台灣各個層面企業及工業包括中小企業界 ------1 2 3 4 5 b. 此政策會影響財團及大企業利潤分配但對中小企業無此影響 ---1 2 3 4 5 c. 此政策不是好的政策因為政府沒有作好稅法修改的配套措施-- ---1 2 3 4 5 d. 此政策使台灣高等教育進入募款時代 ------1 2 3 4 5 3. 自民國八十五年至今下列哪一業界曾捐款給貴校? [ ] 農林漁牧 [ ] 礦業或採石業 [ ] 製造業 [ ] 水電瓦斯業 [ ] 營造業 [ ] 零售或大中盤商業 [ ] 旅館餐飲業 [ ] 交通通訊業 [ ] 金融保險業 [ ] 不動產及租賃業 [ ] 專業科學及技術服務業 [ ] 教育服務業 [ ] 醫療健康及社會福利服務業 [ ] 文化體育休閒服務業 [ ] 其他服務業 [ ] 其他 ______4. 下列企業或工業界未來可能捐款給公立大學院校? [ ] 農林漁牧 [ ] 礦業或採石業 [ ] 製造業 [ ] 水電瓦斯業 [ ] 營造業 [ ] 零售或大中盤商業 [ ] 旅館餐飲業 [ ] 交通通訊業 [ ] 金融保險業 [ ] 不動產及租賃業 [ ] 專業科學及技術服務業 [ ] 教育服務業 [ ] 醫療健康及社會福利服務業 [ ] 文化體育休閒服務業 [ ] 其他服務業 [ ] 其他 ______5. 貴校是否獲得企業界捐款? [ ] 是, [ ] 否選擇 “是” 請繼續問題 5.1 5.1 請填寫企業界捐款資料至下列表格捐款企業全銜捐款企業目的

262

6. 貴校是否獲得基金會界捐款? [ ] 是, [ ] 否 ( 選擇 “是” 請繼續問題 6.1 ) 6.1 請填寫基金會捐款資料於下列表格捐款基金會全銜捐款基金會目的

APPENDIX C

NATIONAL SURVEY OF CORPORATIONS (NSC)

264

National Survey of Corporations (NSC)

Corporation name:______Date: ______

The NSC has 15 questions. (Please indicate your response to the following statements by circling in 1, 2, 3, or 4. These numbers refer to the Likert Scale: 1 indicates that you strongly agree, 2 agree, 3 disagree, and 4 strongly disagree).

1. Which of the following factors influence your company’s decision to donate to public higher education institutions (PHEIs) a. Marketing factors ------1 2 3 4 b. Tax saving factors ------1 2 3 4 c. Social currency factors ------1 2 3 4 d. Social responsibility factors ------1 2 3 4 e. Public relation factors ------1 2 3 4 f. Other factors ______

2. How does your company determine which PHEI will receive your donation? a. Network ------1 2 3 4 b. Mass media ------1 2 3 4 c. A PHEI actively contacts my corporation to fund, e.g., a proposal -1 2 3 4 e. Other factors______

3. How does your company evaluate the PHEI funding recipients? a. Academic reputation------1 2 3 4 b. PHEI alumni performance ------1 2 3 4 c. Ranking ------1 2 3 4 d. Mission, vision, or goals of PHEIs ------1 2 3 4 e. Teaching, research, and service provided by PHEIs ------1 2 3 4 f. Financial position and performance ------1 2 3 4 g. Other factors ______

4.What purpose does your corporation have in contributing to PHEIs? a. Develop relationships with PHEIs------1 2 3 4 b. Strictly business transactions or considerations ------1 2 3 4 c. Strictly philanthropic considerations ------1 2 3 4 d. Other factors ______

5. What strategies does your corporation use when donating to a PHEI? a. Long-term plans of more than 3 years ------1 2 3 4 b. Long-term plans are better than short-term projects of 1 to 3 years. ------1 2 3 4 c. Specific contributions usually meet PHEI needs. ------1 2 3 4 d. Group meetings are better than individual conferences

265

for PHEI funding. ------1 2 3 4 e. PHEIs should actively contact corporations to seek funding. ------1 2 3 4 f. Other perspectives ______

6. How does your company communicate with a PHEI during the donation process? [_] by phone [_] by in-person meetings [_] by business meals [_] by theme activities [_] by online/emails [_] by private meals [_] by formal documents such as mails and faxes [_] by formal group meetings [_] by other ways ______

7. When interacting with a PHEI for the purpose of donating, on what does your corporation focus? a. Leadership style of the PHEI president or development administrator ------1 2 3 4 b. Fundraising performance of the PHEI president or development administrator ------1 2 3 4 c. Social service or philanthropic activities sponsored by the PHEI ---1 2 3 4 d. Management philosophy of the PHEI president or other top administrators’ ------1 2 3 4 e. Whether or not PHEIs receive other contributions ------1 2 3 4 f. Whether or not the company has a close relationship with the trustees, the president, or top administrators at a PHEI ----1 2 3 4 g. Whether or not any alumni, parent, or friend of a PHEI served or is serving as director or higher in the corporation ------1 2 3 4 h. Whether or not children of directors or those in higher positions at the corporation study at a PHEI ------1 2 3 4 i. Whether or not the company considers the possibility of cooperative programs or projects with a PHEI to provide internships to students at that PHEI ------1 2 3 4 j. Recommendation or support of a PHEI by a famous celebrity ------1 2 3 4 k. Community involvement by a PHEI ------1 2 3 4 l. Financial crisis of a specific PHEI ------1 2 3 4 m. Geographic factors, such as the location of the PHEI in the same community as the company ------1 2 3 4 n. The owner’s preferences for a specific PHEI ------1 2 3 4 o. Other factors ______

8.Please list PHEIs that received contributions from your company. Date PHEI Donation Purpose

9.Who made the final decision to fund a PHEI? [_] An individual. Position title ______[_] A group or committee.

266

Committee name ______. Number of committees ____.

10.Taiwan’s government has encouraged PHEIs to raise funds from private enterprisers and corporations and foundations in Taiwan since 1996. (Please indicate your response to the following statements by circling in 1, 2, 3, 4, or. These numbers refer to the Likert Scale: 1 indicates that you strongly agree, 2 agree, 3 have no comment, 4 disagree, and 5 strongly disagree). a. Are you aware of this policy? Yes __, No __ b. It influences the management blueprint of the corporation. ------1 2 3 4 5 c. It influences the financial plan of the corporation. ------1 2 3 4 5 d. It influences the corporation to donate to PHEIs. ------1 2 3 4 5 e. It influence many of Taiwan’s corporate groups to fund PHEIs. ----1 2 3 4 5 f. Such a policy provides more space and opportunity for corporations to interact with PHEIs. ------1 2 3 4 5 g. This policy is not a good policy because Taiwan’s government should market and circulate it------1 2 3 4 5 because this policy lacks laws and regulations, such as tax reforms ------1 2 3 4 5 because of the Taiwanese conventional belief in donating only to local religion, not to PHEIs ------1 2 3 4 5 because the government should fully support PHEIs, not businesses and industries ------1 2 3 4 5 Other reasons ______

11. What do you think about “donation” behavior of business groups to PHEIs? a. Government should encourage companies in supporting PHEIs by funding through fixing current tax regulations. ------1 2 3 4 5 b. Entrepreneurs should bear social responsibilities to support public higher education. ------1 2 3 4 5 c Business and industrial organizations should put philanthropic participation into their organizational mission, vision, and goals. ---1 2 3 4 5

12. Is the company’s “philanthropic giving or donating to society” a part of the mission or goal of the corporation? [_] Yes. [_] No, not right now. [_] No, but we/I will consider it. [_] No, it is not necessary. [_] Other ______

13. Has your corporation or company donated to PHEIs in Taiwan? Yes __ No __ 14. Does your corporation plan to donate to PHEIs? Yes __ No __ 15. Do you agree to participate in an in-depth interview ? Yes __ No __

APPENDIX D

台灣企業捐款公立大學院校問卷調查(NSC)

268

企業先進勛席: 您好，我是美國俄亥俄州肯特州立大學 Kent State University 博士後選人林憲鴻，主修教育行政，研究主題 Why do Taiwanese corporations and foundations donate to public universities and colleges in Taiwan? An investigation of their incentives, motivations, and decision making processes. (為何台灣企業及基金會捐助公立大學?他們捐助動機及決策過程之調查)，回台灣收集資料。又自民國八十五年以來,政府已逐漸改變對公立大學校院經費贊助方式,使得大多數學校不得不向外勸募經費。此研究將有助於台灣公立大學院校進一步瞭解目前產業界和基金會對於捐助教育機構之原因、決策過程，使其募集對外資金更有效率和效果，並使台灣產學二界有更密切合作和互動，將有助於台灣經濟發展，提升國際競爭力。此問卷目的在於徵詢貴企業或基金會對經費贊助公立大學校院的看法及意願,作為未來其他企業贊助公立大學校院的決策與各校制定募款策略之參考。又問卷調查結果，僅提供本研究分析之用,絕不單獨對外公佈。敬請惠示您的寶貴意見。並致萬分之謝忱。耑此敬頌商祺指導教授: 林憲鴻敬上 Mark Kretovics 博士高等教育研究所博士候選人高等教育研究所副教授 Kent State University 美國俄亥俄州肯特州立大學 Tel: 02-2503-6387 Cell: 0930902041 White Hall 411 tel:3306720642 Fax: 02-2505-0915 [email protected] [email protected]

企業名稱:______1.您的性別? []男[]女 2.您的年齡? _____歲 3.您的學歷? ______4.貴企業是屬那一行業? ______5.貴企業現今有多少員工? ______6.貴企業有多少資本額? ______7.貴企業至今有多少年歷史? ______

269

台灣企業捐款公立大學院校問卷調查(NSC) 企業名稱:______日期______NSC 共有三頁 15 題 1完全同意2同意3不同意4完全不同意

請受訪者於下列問題圈選或打勾，表示您看法及意見。

1.貴企業捐款公立大學院校原因為: a.公司市場利益考量------1 2 3 4 b.節稅考量------1 2 3 4 c.其他同業競爭或同儕影響------1 2 3 4 d.負起社會責任------1 2 3 4 e.建立良好公共關係------1 2 3 4 f.其他,請說明______2.請問貴企業如何知道某公立大專院校有捐助需要? a.透過相關人士介紹------1 2 3 4 b.透過大眾媒體傳播------1 2 3 4 c.公立大學院校主動積極向企業募款,例如:計劃書------1 2 3 4 d.其他,請說明______3.貴企業對公立大專院校評量著重那方面? a.公立大專院校有較好的學術聲望------1 2 3 4 b.公立大專院校校友傑出表現------1 2 3 4 c.公立大專院校排名------1 2 3 4 d.大專院校願景,使命,目標是貴企業捐款重要參考------1 2 3 4 e.公立大專院校教學,研究,服務品質------1 2 3 4 f.公立大專院校財務狀況及運用款項的計畫------1 2 3 4 g.其他,請說明______4.請問貴企業對捐款給公立大專院校的目的基於為何? a.對公立大專院校關係建立考量------1 2 3 4 b.對公立大專院校互惠原則------1 2 3 4 c.慈善表現------1 2 3 4

270

1完全同意2同意3不同意4完全不同意

d.其他,請說明______

5.貴企業對捐款給公立大專院校的策略為何? a.捐款屬長時期的評估及考量------1 2 3 4 b.長期計畫目標捐款比短期計畫目標捐款有效果------1 2 3 4 c.特殊性或針對性的捐款最能滿足公立大專需要------1 2 3 4 d.與委員會成員一起會談比與少數成員單獨會談更有助貴企業與公立大專院校雙方了解------1 2 3 4 e.對貴企業而言應該是由捐款對象採取主動與企業多方接觸,想辦法說服取得企業信任------1 2 3 4 f.其他,請說明______6.貴企業與受款公立大專院校溝通互動方式,請從下列選項中選擇 (可多重選擇) []打電話,傳真[]網路電子信[]私下會餐[]正式文件信件往來 []私下會面[]正式會餐[]正式會談[]參與有主題活動 []其他請說明 ______7.貴企業與受款公立大學互動時著重於: a.校長或高階行政人員領導統馭能力------1 2 3 4 b.校長或高階行政人員籌募款能力------1 2 3 4 c.對社會服務及慈善活動投入------1 2 3 4 d.校長或高階行政人員治校理念------1 2 3 4 e.有無接受過其他單位捐款------1 2 3 4 f.校長或高階行政人員與貴企業關係程度------1 2 3 4 g.公立大專校友,學生家長是否在貴企業任職------1 2 3 4 h.貴企業高階主管子女是否在受捐款者院校就讀------1 2 3 4 i.此校與貴企業的建教合作計畫可能性------1 2 3 4 j.參考社會知名人士的推薦------1 2 3 4 k.公立大專院校投入社區活動多寡------1 2 3 4 l.公立大專院校是否急需財務上的贊助------1 2 3 4 m.地緣關係例如貴企業與大學在同地區------1 2 3 4 n.貴企業老闆的偏好喜愛------1 2 3 4 o.其他,請說明 ______

271

8.請填寫貴企業曾捐助的公立大學相關資料於下列表格

時間公立大學院校全銜捐助目的

9.最後決定捐款給某一所公立大專院校是由 []特定一人決定.職稱______[]特定單位或委員會決定. 特定單位或委員會全銜______委員會人數 ______10.政府已於民國八十五年逐年實施鼓勵公立大學， 1完全同意2同意3無意見4不同意5完全不同意

自行向社會界企業及基金會募款政策:

a.貴公司是否已知道此政策? []是 []否 b.此政策影響貴企業經營方針------1 2 3 4 5 c.會影響貴企業財務規劃------1 2 3 4 5 d.會影響貴企業捐助公立大學意願------1 2 3 4 5 e.會影響台灣企業財團捐助公立大學意願------1 2 3 4 5 f.會提高業界對公立大學關心程度------1 2 3 4 5 g.此政策績效不被看好------1 2 3 4 5 原因: 政府宣導工作不彰------1 2 3 4 5 政府沒有作好稅法修改的配套措施---- 1 2 3 4 5 國人傳統觀念使然:寧捐宗教，不助高教-- 1 2 3 4 5 政府應該扶持公立大學，與業界無關----- 1 2 3 4 5 其他 ______11.貴企業對企業界及基金會捐助公立大學看法如何? a. 政府應針對企業及基金會捐款給公立大學院校修改稅法並鼔勵公司及基金會捐款給公立大學院校。------1 2 3 4 5 b.企業家應負起社會責任支持公立大專院校教育。------1 2 3 4 5 c.企業界及工業界應該把對社會慈善捐款納入基金會願景使命或目標章程。------1 2 3 4 5 12.貴企業是否對社會慈善捐款納入使命或目標章程? []是已納入在企業使命或目標章程中。 []是但現在尚未正式納入公司使命或目標章程。 []否但本企業在未來將會考慮。

272

[]否沒有必要。 []其他請說明 ______13.貴企業是否曾捐款給公立大專院校? []是 []否 14.貴企業是否計劃捐款給公立大學院校? []是 []否 15.企業是否接受此研究進一步採訪? []是 []否

APPENDIX E

NATIONAL SURVEY OF FOUNDATIONS (NSF)

274

National Survey of Foundations (NSF) Foundation Name:______Date: ______The NSF has 17 questions. (Please indicate your response to the following statements by circling in 1, 2, 3, or 4. These numbers refer to the Likert Scale: 1 indicates that you strongly agree, 2 agree, 3 disagree, and 4 strongly disagree).

1. Which of the following factors influence your foundation’s decision to donate to public higher education institutions (PHEIs) a. Foundation’s principles ------1 2 3 4 b. Tax saving factors ------1 2 3 4 c. Social currency factors ------1 2 3 4 d. Social responsibility factors ------1 2 3 4 e. Public relation factors ------1 2 3 4 f. Other factors ______

2. How does your foundation determine which PHEI will receive your donation? a. Network ------1 2 3 4 b. Mass media ------1 2 3 4 c. A PHEI actively contacts my corporation to fund, e.g., a proposal -1 2 3 4 e. Other factors______

3. How does your foundation evaluate the PHEI funding recipients? a. Academic reputation------1 2 3 4 b. PHEI alumni performance ------1 2 3 4 c. Ranking ------1 2 3 4 d. Mission, vision, or goals of PHEIs ------1 2 3 4 e. Teaching, research, and service provided by PHEIs ------1 2 3 4 f. Financial position and performance ------1 2 3 4 g. Other factors ______

4.What types of donations does your foundation give to PHEIs in Taiwan? [_] Research Grants [_] Student Scholarships [_] In-kind contributions [_] Program-Related Investment (PRI) such as funding for specific projects. [_] Endowment [_] Other kind ______

5.How do you or your foundation evaluate the fund applicants (PHEI)? [_] By evaluating requests for proposal (RFP) [_] Other evaluation methods ______

275

6. What purpose does your foundation have in contributing to PHEIs? a. Develop relationships with PHEIs------1 2 3 4 b. Strictly business transactions or considerations ------1 2 3 4 c. Strictly philanthropic considerations ------1 2 3 4 d. Other factors ______

7. What strategies does your foundation use when donating to a PHEI? a. Long-term plans of more than 3 years ------1 2 3 4 b. Long-term plans are better than short-term projects of 1 to 3 years. ------1 2 3 4 c. Specific contributions usually meet PHEI needs. ------1 2 3 4 d. Group meetings are better than individual conferences for PHEI funding. ------1 2 3 4 e. PHEIs should actively contact foundations to seek funding. ------1 2 3 4 f. Other perspectives ______

8. When interacting with a PHEI for the purpose of donating, on what does your foundation focus? a. Leadership style of the PHEI president or development administrator ------1 2 3 4 b. Fundraising performance of the PHEI president or development administrator ------1 2 3 4 c. Social service or philanthropic activities sponsored by the PHEI ---1 2 3 4 d. Management philosophy of the PHEI president or other top administrators’ ------1 2 3 4 e. Whether or not PHEIs receive other contributions ------1 2 3 4 f. Whether or not the foundation has a close relationship with the trustees, the president, or top administrators at a PHEI ----1 2 3 4 g. Whether or not any alumni, parent, or friend of a PHEI served or is serving as director or higher in the foundation ------1 2 3 4 h. Whether or not children of directors or those in higher positions at the foundation study at a PHEI ------1 2 3 4 i. Whether or not the foundation considers the possibility of cooperative programs or projects with a PHEI to provide internships to students at that PHEI ------1 2 3 4 j. Recommendation or support of a PHEI by a famous celebrity ------1 2 3 4 k. Community involvement by a PHEI ------1 2 3 4 l. Financial crisis of a specific PHEI ------1 2 3 4 m. Geographic factors, such as the location of the PHEI in the same community as the foundation ------1 2 3 4 n. The leader’s preferences for a specific PHEI ------1 2 3 4 o. Other factors ______

276

9. How does your foundation communicate with a PHEI during the donation process? [_] by phone [_] by in-person meetings [_] by business meals [_] by theme activities [_] by online/emails [_] by private meals [_] by formal documents such as mails and faxes [_] by formal group meetings [_] by other ways ______

10. Who makes the final decision to fund a PHEI? [_] An individual. Position title ______[_] A group or committee. Committee name ______. Number of committees ____.

11.Please list PHEIs that received contributions from your foundation. Date PHEI Donation Purpose

12. Taiwan’s government has encouraged PHEIs to raise funds from private enterprisers and corporations and foundations in Taiwan since 1996. (Please indicate your response to the following statements by circling in 1, 2, 3, 4, or. These numbers refer to the Likert Scale: 1 indicates that you strongly agree, 2 agree, 3 have no comment, 4 disagree, and 5 strongly disagree). a. Are you aware of this policy? Yes __, No __ b. It influences the management blueprint of the corporation. ------1 2 3 4 5 c. It influences the financial plan of the corporation. ------1 2 3 4 5 d. It influences the corporation to donate to PHEIs. ------1 2 3 4 5 e. It influence many of Taiwan’s corporate groups to fund PHEIs. ----1 2 3 4 5 f. Such a policy provides more space and opportunity for corporations to interact with PHEIs. ------1 2 3 4 5 g. This policy is not a good policy because Taiwan’s government should market and circulate it------1 2 3 4 5 because this policy lacks laws and regulations, such as tax reforms ------1 2 3 4 5 because of the Taiwanese conventional belief in donating only to local religion, not to PHEIs ------1 2 3 4 5 because the government should fully support PHEIs, not businesses and industries ------1 2 3 4 5 Other reasons ______

13. What do you think about “donation” behavior of business groups to PHEIs? a. Government should encourage companies in supporting PHEIs by funding through fixing current tax regulations. ------1 2 3 4 5 b. Entrepreneurs should bear social responsibilities to support public higher education. ------1 2 3 4 5 c Business and industrial organizations should put philanthropic participation into their organizational mission, vision, and goals. ---1 2 3 4 5

277

14. Is the company’s “philanthropic giving or donating to society” a part of the mission or goal of the foundation? [_] Yes. [_] No, not right now. [_] No, but we/I will consider it. [_] No, it is not necessary. [_] Other ______

15. Has your foundation donated to PHEIs in Taiwan? Yes __ No __ 16. Does your foundation plan to donate to PHEIs? Yes __ No __ 17. Do you agree to participate in an in-depth interview for this study? Yes __ No __

APPENDIX F

台灣基金會捐款公立大學院校問卷調查 (NSF)

279

1 2 3 4 台灣基金會捐款公立大學院校問卷調查 (NSF) 日期_____ 完全不同意完全同意同意不同意基金會名稱:______

NSF 共有四頁 17 題

請受訪者於下列問題圈選或打勾，表示您看法及意見。

1.下列那項因素會影響貴基金會捐款給公立大專院校的動機及原因: 1 2 3 4 a.本基金會成立宗旨------1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 b.節稅考量------1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 c.其他基金會捐款的方向和對象------

d.因要負起社會責任 ------e.要建立良好公共關係 ------1 2 3 4 f.其他請說明 ______1 2 3 4 2.請問貴基金會如何知道某公立大專院校有捐助需要? 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 a.透過相關人士介紹 ------

b.透過大眾媒體傳播 ------

c.公立大學院校主動積極向企業募款[例如:計劃書]------1 2 3 4 d.政府行文公告或通知------1 2 3 4 e.其他,請說明______1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 3.請問貴基金會對公立大專院校評量著重那方面? 1 2 3 4 a.公立大專院校有較好的學術聲望------1 2 3 4 b.公立大專院校校友傑出的表現------

c.公立大專院校排名------

d.公立大專院校願景,使命,目標是捐款重要參考------e.公立大專教學,研究,服務品質 ------f.公立大專院校財務狀況及運用款項的計畫 ------

g.其他,請說明______4.貴基金會會選擇那種形式捐助公立大專院校(多重選) 1 2 3 4 []研究基金[]獎學金 []非資金捐助(例如:捐助研究器材) 1 2 3 4 []計畫案投資 []專案基金[例如:建構研究大樓] 1 2 3 4 []其他請說明 ______1 2 3 4

280

5. 請問貴基金會如何評量公立大專院校捐助申請方式? [ ] 審核公立大專院校捐助申請計劃書 [ ] 其他請說明______6.請問貴基金會對捐款給公立大專院校目的基於為何? a.對公立大專院校關係建立的考量------1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 b.對公立大專院校互惠的原則------1 2 3 4 c.慈善表現------d.配合政府政策及規定[例如回饋社會或教育]------1 2 3 4

e.實現本基金會成立宗旨------1 2 3 4 f.其他,請說明______7.請問貴基金會對捐款給公立大專院校的態度為何? a.捐款屬長時期的評估及考量------1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 b.長期計畫目標捐款比短期計畫目標捐款有效果------1 2 3 4 c.特殊性或針對性捐款最能滿足公立大專院校需要------1 2 3 4 d.與委員會成員一起會談比與少數成員單獨會談更有助於 1 2 3 4

貴基金會與公立大專院校雙方了解 ------1 2 3 4 e.對貴基金會而言應該是由捐款對象採取主動與基金會 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 多方接觸,想辦法說服取得基金會信任------1 2 3 4 f.其他,請說明______1 2 3 4 8.貴基金會與受款公立大專院校互動的焦點為: 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 a.受款者的校長或其高階行政人員的領導統馭能力------1 2 3 4 b.受款者的校長或其高階行政人員的籌募款能力------c.公立大專院校對社會服務及慈善活動投入------d.了解受款者校長或其高階行政人員的治校理念------e.了解申請的公立大專院校是否接受其他基金會捐款------f.貴基金會會首先考慮這所公立大專院校董事、校長、或其高階行政人員與基金會的關係程度------g.考慮這公立大學校友,學生家長是否在本基金會任職------h.取決貴基金會高階主管子女是否在受捐者院校就讀------

281

i.會考慮公立大專院校與基金會建教合作計畫可能性------j.會參考社會知名人士的推薦------k.會考慮公立大專院校投入社區活動和影響 ------l.了解公立大專院校是否急需財務上的贊助 ------m.地理因素及地緣關係[例如:兩肇在同社區] ------n.貴基金會執行者的偏好喜愛------o.其他,請說明______9.基金會與受款公立大專院校溝通互動方式,請從下列選項中選擇(多重選擇) []打電話,傳真 []網路電子信 []私下會餐 []正式文件信件往來 []私下會面 []正式會餐 []正式會談 []參與有主題活動 []其他請說明______10.最後決定捐款給某一所公立大專院校是由 [ ]特定一人決定.職稱______[ ]特定單位或委員會決定.委員會人數______特定單位或委員會全銜______11.請填寫貴基金會曾捐助的公立大學相關資料於下列表格

時間公立大學院校全銜捐助目的

完全不同意完全同意不予置評 12.政府於民國八十五年逐年實施鼓勵公立大學自行向不同意社會企業及基金會募款政策: 同意

a.貴基金會是否已知道此政策? []是 []否 b.此政策影響貴基金會經營方針------1 2 3 4 5 c.會影響貴基金會財務規劃------1 2 3 4 5 d.影響貴基金會捐助公立大學意願------1 2 3 4 5 e.會影響台灣基金會財團捐助公立大學意願------1 2 3 4 5 f.會提高基金會對公立大學關心程度------1 2 3 4 5 g.此政策績效不被看好------1 2 3 4 5 原因: 政府宣導工作不彰------1 2 3 4 5 政府沒有作好稅法修改的配套措施------1 2 3 4 5 國人傳統觀念使然:寧捐宗教，不助高教------1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

282

政府應該扶持公立大學，與基金會無關------1 2 3 4 5 其他 ______13.貴基金會對企業界及基金會捐助公立大學院校看法? a.政府應針對企業及基金會捐款給公立大學院校修改稅法並鼔勵公司及基金會捐款給公立大學院校------1 2 3 4 5 b.企業家應負起社會責任支持公立大專院校教育------1 2 3 4 5 c.企業界及工業界應該把對社會慈善捐款納入基金會願景使命或目標章程------1 2 3 4 5 14.貴基金會是否會把對社會慈善捐款納入基金會使命或目標章程? [ ]是。已納入在企業使命或目標章程中 [ ]是。但現在尚未正式納入公司使命或目標章程 [ ]否。但本基金會在未來將會考慮 [ ]否。沒有必要 [ ]其他，請說明 ______15.貴基金會是否曾捐款給公立大專院校? []是[]否 16.貴企業是否計劃捐款給公立大學院校? []是[]否 17.貴基金會是否願意接受此研究進一步採訪? []是[]否

APPENDIX G

KEY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS (KIQ)

284

Key Interview Questions (KIQ)

1. Why does your organization want to donate to a specific public higher education

institution? (General incentive investigation) Q2

2. How do you evaluate the relationship between your donation to a public HEI and

your company’s marketing factors (for example, sale and revenue growth, prospective

increase in customers, or establish good will)? (Marketing incentive investigation) Q2

3. How do you understand the tax saving factors for your donation to a public HEI?

How do you evaluate it? (Tax saving incentive investigation) Q2

4. When your friends or business competitors donate to a public HEI, what attitudes and

opinions do you have toward their giving? (Social currency incentive investigation)

5. How do you evaluate the relationship between the public relation and your donation

to a public HEI? (Public relation incentive investigation) Q2

6. How do you evaluate the relationship between your donation to public HEIs and the

concept of social responsibility? Can you comment more about that ?(Social

responsibility incentive investigation) Q2

7. What is the process of making a decision to give funds to a specific HEI? (Donation

process investigation) Q3

8. What do you think of the 1996 public HEIs endowment policy? (1996 policy

investigation) Q4

285

9. In your opinion, what factors or variables critically influence the relations between on

corporate giving and public HEIs’ fundraising? (relationship investigation) Q5

APPENDIX H

LARGE TABLES IN THE DISSERTATION

287

Large Tables in the Dissertation Table H1 Corporate Interviewees’ Responses to Research Questions 2 through 5 Q2: What incentives Q3: How do Q4: How has Q5: What factors or motivate corporations to corporations decide corporate giving to variables influence give funds to PHEI? which PHEI to fund? PHEI changed the PHEI fundraising since the 1996 network? government policy was instituted? A Corporate development; Professional managers This policy will benefit PHEI and corporation improvement of the look to PHEIs to assist PHEI and corporation, are synchronized; environment or with corporate needs, encouraging more PHEI provides viable reduction of pollution fill any lack in product opportunities to interact research projects to materials or human with each other. meet actual needs of resources, etc.; PHEIs corporation. engage in research projects that meet corporate demand; appropriate timing B Public welfare, tax Helping PHEIs is a Agreed with this policy, Human resources savings, recruitment of matter of public informing people of the recruited by human resources, welfare, not politics. needs of PHEIs. corporations from cooperation between PHEIs corporation and PHEI, social responsibility, good karma C Budget surplus, Corporate staff Manager needs more Social values, public interest in members’ alma maters, information on the meaning, and internal decision made purpose and function of contents of PHEI social welfare, at corporate meeting each PHEI’s fund. fundraising plans and recruitment of approaches human resources, stable business development D Cooperation between Alumni giving back to This policy had better Combination of corporation and PHEI, alma maters have the global public welfare and social responsibility, perspectives. For students at PHEI competition for human example, the

resources government encourage

more international

corporations should be allowed to contribute. E Recruitment of human Corporate executive as Manager was happy to Networking, resources, social spiritual leader of support this policy, but the emotional attachment responsibility company decides government should take to alma mater, R & D recipients of donations; care of PHEIs. Businesses board members second her share social responsibility or his recommendation to by assisting PHEIs to donate to PHEIs. become self-sufficient.

288

F Alumni giving Alma mater Disagreed with this Corporation donates policy to PHEI in order to gain business opportunity with PHEI G Corporate image (social Alma mater, alumni Manager worried that Networking, social image), tax association contacts this policy would concerns, recruitment considerations, corporate influence academic of human resources interests, social freedom at PHEI responsibility H Corporate R & D Corporations donate to Manager worried that Donors gain fame, PHEIs where research PHEI fundraising reputation, and related to the business would turn into a financial benefits by is conducted “commission scandal” donating to PHEI. as it had with private colleges and corporate donors. I Giving back to society, Respondent looks for Respondent disagreed Cooperation between human recruiting, social PHEIs with with this policy because corporations and responsibility departments related to the government should PHEI, recruitment of his own to facilitate bear full responsibility human resources future recruitment of for PHEI development, human resources not corporations. J Corporate development, Name recognition, alma Interviewee agreed with Networking, tax savings, social mater this policy because economic cycle, responsibility (6:3:1) PHEIs should not be recruitment of human completely dependent resources on government support; only a few historic PHEIs have been able to raise their own funds. K Social welfare and Corporation donated to This policy helps turn Three questions: interest, enhance R & D, PHEI to support campus funds into 1. Competition. corporate image, specific professors competitive market 2. Name recognition. competitive ability, whose work aligns with organism. Respondent 3. Social public market consideration, manager’s interests and suggested the welfare. manager’s preference, who are loyal to government should Two organisms: market strategy manager’s plans. compensate PHEIs with 1. R & D. shorter histories of 2. Market funding. A combination development. of a competitive market One subjective organism and a issue: corporate compensation system would create fairness presidents’ or and justice. CEOs’ initial attitudes and interests in donating to PHEI L Cooperation between Alma maters, project This policy is a good Networking, corporation and PHEI, directors’ standard and one because PHEI’s relationship, skills or research for reputation dependence on the technical support, government is not connection

289

corporate development, always stable, and this tax savings, peer or policy meets the needs competitor pressure, of global competition. public relations, social responsibility M Giving back to society She fully supported the Interviewee obeyed this Corporate manager programs that provide policy. has an initial activities for school preference or interest children do after school. in specific programs or areas. N Recruit human resources Top managers’ alma This policy will create Alumni achievements related to business, maters; held meeting to opportunities for and desire to give social responsibility, decide to donate to interaction between back; connection corporate development, PHEI corporations and between teaching and corporate image, PHEIs. research at PHEI and corporate development O Giving back to alma Alma maters, research The corporation never Intention and maters, recruit human at PHEI related to that engaged in PHEI preference of resources for R & D, tax of corporation fundraising. corporate manager, savings, social government policy responsibility P Cooperation between This corporation Interviewee agreed with Social corporation and PHEI, supports baseball team this policy to balance responsibility giving back to society, at a PHEI. the allocation of social social responsibility resources from high- tech industries and traditional industries. Q Tax savings, recruitment N/A This policy perhaps is PHEI presidents’ of human resources, not well known because executive ability and cooperation between Taiwan’s society does power, tax cuts, and corporation and PHEI, not sense the need to government social responsibility, donate to PHEIs. recognition of corporate development corporate donations to PHEIs R Social responsibility, tax Alma maters, approach Manager agreed with Networking saving, recruitment of by alumni association this policy because this human resources, is a win–win strategy corporate image for PHEIs and corporations. S Giving back to alma Alma maters, PHEI Respondent thought the Networking, key maters; cooperation provides useful advantages of this influential power, among corporation, resources for this policy were greater than background of PHEI, and government; corporation its disadvantages. It corporate executive, corporate image speeds up circulate social responsibility, knowledge about PHEI. evaluation of effect of donation T Good karma, social N/A Interviewee complained Recruitment of responsibility, that PHEIs suffer from human resources serious personnel issues and budget misallocation. This policy has not eliminated these problems.

290

U Social responsibility, Alma maters, PHEI Manager disagreed with Recruiting of human giving back to alma with areas and this policy because resources, maters, tax savings departments similar to Taiwan’s industrial networking this corporation complex is dominated by small- to mid-sized businesses that won’t support this policy. V Social responsibility, tax Manager of corporate He agreed with this Multiple incentives to savings group emphasizes policy. donate to PHEI for global views and future purposes supports employees learning English; donates with the hope that PHEI will train its graduates in these two areas. W Social responsibility Respondent would Respondent disagreed Networking donate to PHEI where with this policy that his children studied. helps turn higher education into a competitive market organism. X Social responsibility PHEI provides Interviewee agreed with Quality and direction curriculum to update this policy. PHEIs can of teaching at PHEI, corporate employees. learn from fundraising including providing techniques practiced by materials to train Taiwan’s religious corporate employees; community. cooperation between corporation and PHEI Y Social responsibility, N/A Respondent agreed with Tax savings corporate development, this policy. tax savings Z Social responsibility, Alma maters; Respondent agreed with Networking, appeals relationships respondent would this policy to decrease from alumni donate to PHEI where the burden on the associations. his children study. government budget. This policy marks a trend in global competition. Z R & D needs PHEI with areas and Interviewee agreed with Social needs push Z projects similar to this this policy if PHEI the firm to update corporation related to this corporation’s business. R & D research.

291

Table H2 Summary of Taiwanese Foundation Participants’ Responses to Research Questions

Q2: What incentives Q3: How do Q4: How has foundation Q5: What factors or motivate foundations to foundations giving to PHEIs changed variables influence the give funds to PHEI? decide which since the 1996 PHEI fundraising Participant PHEI to fund? government policy was network? instituted? a Social responsibility, PHEIs engage in The policy is a global trend and PHEI programs or government policy, specific research breaks with traditional Chinese projects contribute foundation development, projects to meet educational systems. Student substantially to and tax savings. foundation’s tuitions represent a major share corporations or demand for of PHEI budget pie. More foundations. PHEIs can professional fundraising, higher PHEI offer name recognition research or autonomy. Fixed salary and good advertisement government systems for PHEI professors for corporations or policies. deter excellent educators from foundations. applying for positions. b Foundation leaders give Relationship with Interviewee agreed that this Tax incentives motivate back to their alma maters; alma mater. Some policy increases opportunities entrepreneurs to deal foundations support the research areas at for interaction between PHEI with their profits in related areas or PHEI match and society to create a win–win flexible distribution. departments in PHEIs; foundation’s situation because it helps PHEI Foundation personnel specific needs of specific needs. research meet actual demands have strong willingness foundation. of businesses. to give back to PHEIs. c Foundations or N/A Respondent approved because Alumni with emotional corporations recognize policy helps distribute attachments give back PHEI research or resources reasonably to PHEIs; to alma maters; a focus performance policy leads to finances to on a topic or theme of topics/themes. support development, lower value for exchange with Foundations discover management risks, increase PHEI; social valuable projects or energetic sources, and responsibility; policies at PHEI or cooperate with society as well enhancement of programs worth as corporations. foundation images. exchanging with PHEI; that is, they have something of value to exchange. d Foundation principles, PHEI has good Interviewee doubted this policy Recruitment of human tax savings, pressure name recognition works because Taiwan resources; PHEI has from competitors, public government did not allocate good images; PHEI relations, social educational appropriations governance and responsibility correctly. He suggested that performance recognized PHEI still receive support from by society. government and corporations; foundations fill in the financial gap, if necessary.

e Social responsibility, N/A Respondent doubted efficacy of Government policies, pressure from this policy. Taiwan government economic cycles, good competitors. left its economy in bad straits interaction between so few companies earned foundations and PHEIs. enough money to support PHEIs.

292 f Social responsibility, PHEI students This policy may have Personal networking principles of foundations, apply for the encouraged people to have a scholarship assistance for foundation relationship with PHEIs. The capable college students scholarship. relationship determines from poor families whether they donate or not. The policy was designed with good purposes, but in practice people distort the purposes of the policy. g Tax considerations, The foundation Interviewee agreed with this PHEIs create good foundation development, supports PHEIs policy in that it motivates teaching materials and social responsibility that have early social groups to help higher R & D programs for childhood education. foundations and programs. corporations. h Social responsibility, The foundation Many PHEIs have development Building emotional alumni giving back. supported PHEI departments or offices to connections between student motivate them to raise funds PHEIs and their organizations, from society. Global students and graduates. such as Scouts, or competition has influenced Building a good cycle public welfare Taiwan’s higher education to for PHEI teaching and change the original system and alumni giving back. to enact the fundraising policy. i Foundation principles, PHEI actively Respondent did not think this Foundation principles recruitment of human contacted the policy would influence influence decision resources, social foundation to decisions of foundation. The which individuals or responsibility offer support or only consideration is who groups to help. cooperation. needs help. Foundation recruits human resources for its corporate group. j Foundation principles, PHEI activities or Interviewee agreed that this Giving back to alma social responsibility, programs match policy would increase PHEI maters, supporting seeking maximum social the foundation’s self-sufficiency, but the PHEIs in the same areas value. principles, goals, government should fully or programs, enhancing and groups they supervise how PHEIs use their foundations’ social serve as well as its budgets. The policy should images, and tax savings program design. regulate PHEIs so that they are forced to close if they cannot become self-sufficient. k Tax savings, social PHEIs have good PHEIs ought to be fully Long-term connection responsibility. reputations and supported by the government, or relationship, potential for not foundations or recruitment of human development in corporations. resources, networking; some areas. college from which foundation employees graduated l Tax savings, principles of Alma mater This policy has influenced Networking, the foundation more PHEIs than private relationships, universities. recruitment of human resources, cooperation between PHEI and industry, image of corporation or foundation, leadership and performance of

293

PHEI presidents. m Principles of the PHEI proposal This policy has encouraged PHEI networking and foundation, PHEI application, how good name recognition. PHEIs performance, attractive programs fit the current much money to should solicit funds from good fundraising themes or social needs apply, the foundations or corporations. goals, accurate action principles of the plan for fundraising. foundation. n For the foundation: PHEI and R & D Respondent criticized the Foundations can change giving back to society, teams participated policy. As a nonprofit society if they have serving society, inspiring in foundation’s organization, the government good programs. PHEIs a trend. For corporate contest. should focus on examining the can do the same, and if foundations: alma maters, financial performance of PHEIs they do, then giving back to society, to make sure money is properly foundations will recruitment of human spent on real needs, not to support PHEI. resources encourage PHEI fundraising to compensate for budget shortages. o Principles of the N/A The foundation does not care N/A foundation about this policy. p Principles of the PHEI students Respondent agreed with this Social responsibility, foundation, giving back applied for its policy because government foundation’s goals or to society, social scholarships finances do not meet or balance visions responsibility the needs of the entire nation. q Tax savings, Alma maters, Interviewee agreed with this Tax savings, development related policy because PHEI Recruitment of human of related industry and departments or development is unlimited, so resources, R & D for corporations, donating to research projects PHEIs need assistance. related industrial alma maters to enhance at PHEIs their image. r Principles of foundation N/A Respondent agreed with this PHEIs have good policy because it was good for reputation and name PHEIs and foundations. recognition, attractive fundraising themes and goals, recruitment of human resources s Principles of foundation N/A Interviewee agreed with this Networking policy but needed time to evaluate its effects. PHEIs also need time to develop performance and reputations. t Tax savings, giving back Alma maters This policy connected PHEIs Tax savings, to society, social with foundations and recruitment of human responsibility (help poor corporations. Interviewee resources. students or fulfill urgent concerned about function and needs), multiple effects of foundation’s incentives. donations to PHEIs. u Giving back to alma Alma maters, Interviewee disagreed with this PHEIs produce maters for personal fame, areas and policy because it turned graduates with a good tax savings, enhancement departments at Taiwan’s PHEIs into basic professional of reputation for PHEIs related to businesses that must compete knowledge. foundations work of this with current industries. This foundation destroyed the balance of competition in industry.

294

Table H3 Taiwanese Corporate Population’s Major Donation Incentives to PHEIs 1. Corporate development 2. Improvement of the environment; reduction of pollution 3. Public welfare/interest 4. Tax savings 5. Recruitment of human resources 6. Cooperation between corporation and PHEI 7. Social responsibility 8. Good karma 9. Budget surplus 10. Stable business development 11. Competition for human resources 12. Alumni giving 13. Corporate image 14. Corporate interests 15. Corporate R & D 16. Giving back to society 17. Competitive ability 18 Market consideration 19. Manager’s preferences 20. Market strategy 21. Skills or research for technical support 22. Peer or competitor pressure 23. Public relations 24. Recruit human resources related to business 25. Giving back to alma maters 26. Recruit human resources for research and development 27. Corporation–PHEI–government cooperation 28. Relationships

Table H4 Taiwan’s Corporate Population’s Donation Decisions to Choose Which PHEIs 1. PHEIs engage in specific research projects to meet corporate demands 2. Appropriate timing 3. Helping PHEIs is a matter of public welfare, not politics 4. Corporate staff members’ alma maters, internal decision made at corporate meeting 5. Alumni giving back to alma maters 6. Corporate executive as spiritual leader of company decides recipients of donations; board members second her or his recommendation to donate to PHEIs 7. Alumni association contacts 8. Corporations donate to PHEIs where research related to the business is conducted 9. Corporation donates to PHEIs with departments related to their own to facilitate future recruitment of human resources 10. Name recognition 11. Corporation donates to PHEI to support specific professors whose work aligns with manager’s interests and who are loyal to manager’s plans. 12. Project directors’ performance and reputation 13. Manager fully supported the programs at PHEI that provide activities for schoolchildren to do after school. 14. This corporation supports the baseball team at the PHEI.

295

15. PHEI provides useful resources for this corporation. 16. Manager of corporate group emphasizes global views and supports employees learning English, donates with the hope that PHEI will train its graduates in these two areas. 17. Manager donates to PHEI his children attended. 18. PHEI provides curriculum for continuing education of corporate employees

Table H5 Taiwan’s Corporate Population’s Responses to Research Q4 1. This policy benefits PHEI and corporations, encouraging more opportunities to interact with one another. 2. Agreed with this policy, informing people of the needs of PHEIs. 3. Some firms need more information on the purpose and function of each PHEI’s fund. 4. This policy had better include global perspectives. For example, the government should allow more international corporations to contribute. 5. Manager was happy to support this policy, but the government should take care of PHEIs. Businesses share social responsibility by assisting PHEIs to become self-sufficient. 6. Disagreed with this policy 7. Manager worried that this policy would influence academic freedom at PHEIs. 8. Manager worried that PHEI fundraising would turn into a “commission scandal” as it had with private colleges and corporate donors. 9. Respondent disagreed with this policy because the government should bear full responsibility for PHEI development, not corporations. 10. Interviewee agreed with this policy because PHEI should not be completely dependent on government support; historically, only a few PHEIs have been able to raise their own funds. 11. This policy helps turn campus funds into competitive market organism. Respondent suggested the government should compensate PHEIs with shorter histories of funding. A combination of a competitive market organism and a compensation system would create fairness and justice. 12. This policy is a good one because PHEI dependence on the government is not always desirable, and this policy meets global competition needs. 13. Respondent completely favored this policy. 14. The corporation never engaged in PHEI fundraising. 15. Interviewee agreed with this policy to balance the allocation of social resources from technology industries and traditional industries. 16. This policy is not well known perhaps because Taiwan’s people do not sense the need to donate to PHEIs. 17. Manager agreed with this policy because this is a win–win strategy for PHEIs and corporations. 18. Respondent thought the advantages of this policy were greater than its disadvantages. It speeds up to circulate knowledge about PHEIs. 19. Interviewee complained that PHEIs suffer from serious personnel issues and budget misallocation. This policy has not eliminated these problems. 20. Manager disagreed with this policy because Taiwan’s industrial complex is dominated by small- to mid-sized businesses that won’t support this policy. 21. Respondent disagreed with this policy. It turns Taiwan’s higher education into a competitive market organism so that PHEIs will emphasize business and market functions, not academic values and functions. 22. Interviewee agreed with this policy. PHEIs can learn fundraising methods and strategies from Taiwan’s religious communities. 23. Interviewee agreed with this policy in order to decrease the burden on the government budget. This policy is a trend in global competition. 24. Manager agreed with this policy if the mission of the PHEI relates to this corporation’s business areas.

296

Table H6 Factors or Variables Influence the PHEI Fundraising Network with Corporations 1. PHEI and corporations are synchronized; PHEI provides research projects to meet corporate needs. 2. Human resources recruited by corporations from PHEIs 3. Build relationships, connections, interactions between corporations and PHEIs 4. Corporations obtain know-how and R & D from PHEIs. 5. Social values, meaning, and contents of PEHI fundraising plans and approaches 6. Recognition of PHEI’s role in social or public welfare 7. Recognition by society or corporations of performance of PHEI students and Graduates 8. Networking 9. Alma mater (alumni association); emotional and continuous appeals 10. Corporation obtains specific business or construction opportunity with PHEI 11. Corporation’s social concerns, such as image enhancement 12. Corporations want to have reputation of donating to PHEI. 13. Cooperation between corporation and PHEI 14. Economic cycles 15. Corporation enhances its potential for competition by donating to PHEI. 16. Corporation enhances its name recognition by donating to PHEI. 17. Corporation improves its market development and strategy for products. 18. Attitudes and interests of corporate presidents or CEOs in donating to PHEIs 19. Corporate managers have an initial preference or interest in specific programs or areas emphasized at PHEI 20. Achievements of PHEI alumni 21. Attitudes of PHEI alumni toward giving back 22. Corporation follows government policy to support PHEIs 23. Corporation assumes social responsibility by donating to a PHEI 24. Executive ability and power of PHEI presidents 25. Government recognition of corporate donations to PHEI 26. Background of corporate executive 27. Evaluation of effects of donating to PHEI 28. Multiple incentives to donate to PHEI for future purposes 29. Quality and direction of teaching at PHEI, including providing materials to train corporate employees 30. Corporations benefit from tax savings by donating to PHEI

297

Table H7 Taiwan’s Foundation Population’s Major Donation Incentives to PHEIs Q2: What incentives motivate foundations to give funds to PHEI? Participants 1. Social responsibility 11 2. Principles of the foundation 10 3. Tax savings/tax considerations 8 4. Foundation leaders give back to their alma maters; alumni giving back 3 5. Giving back to society 3 6. Pressure from competitors 2 7. Foundation development 2 8. Recruitment of human resources 2 9. Government policy 1 10. Foundations support of the related areas or departments in PHEIs 1 11. Foundations have specific needs 1 12. Foundations recognize PHEI research or performance topics or themes. 1 13. Foundations discover valuable projects or policies at PHEI or programs worth exchanging with PHEI; that is, they have something of value to exchange. 1 14. Public relations 1 15. Foundation scholarship assistance for talented college students from poor families 1 16. Seeking the maximum social value 1 17. PHEI programs fit current social needs 1 18. Serving society 1 19. Inspiring a trend 1 20. Development of related industry 1 21. Development of related corporations 1 22. Donating to alma maters to enhance their image 1 23. Multiple incentives 1 24. Giving back to alma maters to obtain personal recognition 1 25. Enhance positive social reputation of foundation 1

Table H8 Taiwan’s Foundation Population’s Donation Decisions to Choose PHEIs Q3: How do foundations decide which PHEI to fund? Participants 1. Relationship with alma mater. 5 2. PHEI departments or research projects related to this foundation’s focus 3 3. PHEIs engage in specific research projects that meet the foundation’s demand for 2 professional research or government policies. 4. PHEI students apply for foundation scholarships. 2 5. PHEI has good name recognition. 1 6. The foundation supported PHEI student organizations, such as Scouts or public welfare 1 7. PHEI actively contacted the foundation to offer support or cooperation. 1 8. PHEI activities or programs match the foundation’s principles, goals, and service groups 1 as well as its program designs. 9. PHEIs have good reputations and potential for development in some areas. 1 10.PHEI proposal application, how much money needed, principles of the foundation 1 11.PHEI R & D teams participate in the foundation contest 1

298

Table H9 Taiwan’s Foundation Population’s Responses to Research Q4 1. The policy is a global trend and breaks with the traditional Chinese educational system. 2. More fundraising, higher PHEI autonomy. 3. Interviewee agreed that this policy increased opportunities for interaction between PHEI and society to create a win–win situation because it helped PHEI research meet actual demands of businesses. 4. Respondent approved because policy helped distribute resources reasonably to PHEIs; policy led to finances to support development, lower management risks, increase energetic sources, and cooperate with society as well as corporations. 5. Interviewee doubted this policy would work because Taiwan government did not allocate educational appropriations correctly. 6. Interviewee suggested that PHEI still receive support from government and corporations; foundations support the financial gap, if necessary. 7. Respondent doubted efficacy of this policy. Taiwan government left its economy in bad straits so few companies earned enough money to support PHEIs. 8. This policy may have encouraged people to have a relationship with PHEIs. The relationship determines whether they donate or not. The policy was designed with good purposes, but in practice people distorted the purposes of the policy. 9. Interviewee agreed with this policy in that it motivated social groups to help higher education. 10. Many PHEIs had development departments or offices to motivate them to raise funds from society. Global competition influenced Taiwan’s higher education to change the original system and to enact the fundraising policy. 11. Respondent did not think this policy would influence decisions of foundation. The only consideration was who needs help. 12. Interviewee agreed that this policy would increase PHEI self-sufficiency, but the government should fully supervise how PHEIs use their budgets. The policy should regulate PHEIs so that they are forced to close if they cannot become self-sufficient. 13. PHEIs ought to be fully supported by the government, not foundations or corporations. 14. This policy influenced more PHEIs than private universities. 15. This policy encouraged good name recognition. PHEIs should solicit funds from good foundations or corporations. 16. Respondent criticized the policy. As a NPO, the government should focus on examining the financial performance of PHEIs to make sure money is properly spent on real needs, not to encourage PHEI fundraising to compensate for budget shortages. 17. The foundation did not care about this policy. 18. Respondent agreed with this policy because government finances did not meet or balance the needs of the entire nation. 19. Interviewee agreed with this policy because PHEI development was unlimited, so PHEIs needed assistance. 20. Respondent agreed with this policy because it was good for PHEIs and foundations. 21. Interviewee agreed with this policy but needed time to evaluate its effects. PHEIs also need time to develop performance and reputations. 22. This policy connected PHEIs with foundations and corporations. Interviewee concerned about function and effects of foundation’s donations to PHEIs. 23. Interviewee disagreed with this policy because it turned Taiwan’s PHEIs into businesses that must compete with current industries. This destroyed the balance of competition in industry.

299

Table H10 Factors or Variables Influence the PHEI Fundraising Network with Foundations Q5: What factors or variables influence the PHEI fundraising network? participant 1. Recruitment of human resources 7 2. Tax incentives motivated entrepreneurs to deal with their profits in flexible distribution. 4 3. Enhancement of foundation image 3 4. Networking 3 5. Alumni with emotional attachments gave back to alma maters. 2 6. Social responsibility 2 7. Personal networking, relationships 2 8. Whether or not fundraising themes or goals were attractive 2 9. PHEI offered name recognition and good advertisement for corporations or foundations. 2 10. Foundation personnel had strong willingness to give back to PHEIs. 1 11. Focus on a topic or theme of value for exchange with PHEI 1 12. PHEI programs or projects contributed substantially to corporations or foundations. 1 13. Good image of PHEI 1 14. PHEI governance and performance were recognized by society. 1 15. Government policies 1 16. Economic cycles 1 17. Good interactions between foundations and PHEI 1 18. PHEI created good teaching materials and R & D programs for foundations and corporations. 1 19. PHEI built emotional connections with their students and graduates. In the future, their graduates 1 would have a desire to give back to their alma maters. 20. Building a good cycle for PHEI teaching and alumni giving back 1 21. Decisions to help which individuals or groups depended on the principles of the foundation. 1 22. Support PHEI with similar areas or programs as foundation 1 23. Long-term connection or relationship between PHEI and foundations 1 24. College from which foundation employees graduated influenced promotions at some foundations. 1 25. Building cooperation between PHEI and industry 1 26. Leadership style or performance reputation of PHEI president 1 27. Networking and performance of PHEI 1 28. Accurate action plans for fundraising 1 29. Foundations could change society if they had good programs. PHEIs could do the same, and if 1 they did, then foundations would support PHEIs. 30. Goals or vision of the foundation 1 31. Related industrial R & D 1 32. PHEI produced graduates with good basic professional knowledge 1

APPENDIX I

27 CORPORATION INTERVIEW SUMMARIES

301

27 Corporation Interviews Summary Participant A was the president of a corporate group several years earlier but had financial problems with friends. The participant gave up the leadership of this corporate group and let his younger siblings succeed him. At the time of the interview, he served in the capacity of a senior consultant for this corporate group. A graduate of one of the private Taiwanese universities, he revealed the following thoughts on the corporate funding of PHEIs in the interview. The primary reason for corporate donations to PHEI derives from the demands of corporate growth and development in the enhancement of the quality of its service, technical skills, product R & D, or the improvement of the social environment. His company gave funds to a PHEI in exchange for research from its personnel to improve one or more of these factors: (a) company’s service standards, (b) technical progress or breakthrough, (c) company’s product R & D or productivity and efficiency, and (d) the quality of the social environment, including the reduction of pollution. One of the conditions for corporate donations to PHEIs was the fulfillment of a request for one or more theoretical or practical supports from the PHEI; the academic research must meet corporate demands or solve problems, answer questions, or address concerns. In other words, corporate and college research must be synchronized. The other condition was the size of the corporation. Its size, or economic scale, should be large enough to produce surplus profit, making a donation to a PHEI possible. The third condition is that academic research matches the themes or direction of a corporation’s development. The higher the degree to which PHEI research coincides with a

302

corporation’s development, the greater the likelihood a corporation will donate to the

PHEI.

Participant B was a high-level manager of an import company, a Malaysian- owned import company. His responses to questions about corporate donations to PHEIs derived from a business perspective and cultural custom. He cited several reasons for companies to donate to PHEIs: tax savings, source of good human resources, opportunity to build cooperative relationship with PHEIs, and social responsibility. He considered donations to PHEIs as one kind of corporate response to public welfare. Some Taiwanese entrepreneurs donated to PHEIs, hoping for a good luck as a return on their donations as is commonly held in Taiwanese folk wisdom. Corporate donations to PHEIs benefit corporations and society. Participant B also supported the PHEI self-sufficiency policy because it could alleviate financial problems at PHEIs and actual situations at those

PHEIs would be disclosed to society. Finally, corporations have resources to support the development of Taiwan’s PHEIs.

Participant C was the president of a corporate group that produced air conditioners and freezers. According to him, two conditions had to be met before a corporation gives a donation to a PHEI: one is an objective condition, for example, a company may have a budgetary condition; and the other one, a subjective condition, for example, the top manager of a company may feel the inclination to give back to society.

Relying on social aspects to decide whether or not to donate to PHEIs, he thought that funding PHEIs and corporate profits were unrelated and that tax savings were a peripheral advantage, not a primary reason to donate to PHEIs. He supported any kind of

303

funding for PHEIs to improve Taiwanese society, especially for its enhancement of social value, social meaning, and social welfare. He emphasized that each donor should monitor the way a donation case relates with societal needs or development.

Participant D was the president of a corporate group that manufactured construction materials. He compared characteristics of corporations and responsibilities of university presidents in Taiwan and the United States in order to explain why Taiwan’s donations to PHEIs differ from those in the USA. He indicated that racial differences and traditional customs in Taiwan made its corporations less willing to donate to PHEIs than corporations in the United States; besides, few presidents of Taiwanese PHEIs bore full responsibility to raise funds to support their campus needs unlike American university presidents. His corporation felt a strong social responsibility to assist some minority groups, such as the elderly without family care, the handicapped, and children from low- or no-income families, by providing material support, compensation, or scholarships. In other words, public welfare was the first priority of Participant D, and assistance to

PHEIs or college students, second.

Participant E was the president of Hualien Hobert Loading and Transportation

Company, located in eastern Taiwan and engaged in loading and unloading ships and boats. He and the researcher met at a coffee shop at Taipei Airport as he was waiting to board a plane to go home. He mentioned that the Taiwan government allowed Taiwanese to enter Mainland China to do business, so many traditional industries in Taiwan have moved into Mainland China where labor costs are cheaper that in Taiwan. This policy directly caused a dramatic change for Taiwanese traditional industries as well as

304

indirectly for the development of higher education in Taiwan, affecting all kinds of institutions from those offering liberal education to those offering high-tech education.

He also thought that corporations invested in or donated to PHEIs to attract more talented people to their employ to perpetually contribute their learning and experiences to the company. He also pointed out the Taiwanese belief that the chief executive is the role- model leader of the corporation, and the decision to donate lay in her or his hands.

Participant F was the boss at a construction and development company. He was disappointed with current higher education policies and with college graduates’ low performance. He believed this policy diluted educational resources available to higher education system, causing a mass of college graduates of low quality instead of elite graduates needed in the Taiwanese work force. Thus PHEIs would be unable to meet corporate expectations and requirements. He criticized the majority of corporate donations to PHEIs because he believed they came with a hidden purpose or a quid pro quo arrangement, that is, a donation in exchange for something.

Participant G was an architect who ran an architecture office. He thought that many corporations were conscious of their image in society and so donated to PHEIs as a strategy to promote their products or enhance their corporate image. He also said,

“Corporate donations to society or colleges are riding the tide of popularity.” He believed that corporate donations to PHEIs were a useful channel between a PHEI and a company to exchange resources with each other. The first condition to donate to a PHEI was high profit ratios as in the high-tech industry and financial sector. Because the cash revenue in architecture is low, the architecture industry had a lower potential to donate. In his

305

opinion, many architects donated small amounts to their alma maters because their

alumni associations made frequent contacts.

Participant H was the president of a small- to mid-sized company that imported machinery for Taiwan’s domestic needs. He observed that many traditional Taiwanese industries were one-person or family corporations, so they did not need to consult HEIs.

By contrast, the capital-intensive high-tech industry required the research and talents of college graduates to contribute to their firm’s developments; thus, they needed to donate to PHEIs for to ensure corporate growth. Many companies in Taiwan are owned by families, who may not understand that everybody shares the universe; consequently, they do not donate to PHEIs.

Participant I served as the president of several companies. He emphasized that he hired college graduates with good values as his employees because he believed that anyone can be trained to contribute to the company, but a work ethic, high morals, and loyalty are natural gifts. Without good values, employees block corporate development.

The main two reasons or incentives to donate to PHEI are (a) to bear social responsibility and (b) to cultivate new talent among corporate employees. In addition, the concept of bearing social responsibility includes supporting Taiwan’s educational development from generation to generation. He also mentioned the close relationship between corporate donations to PHEI and economic development. On one hand when a nation’s economic development is positive, many corporations earn money; and they will emphasize the importance of social responsibility. On the other hand many companies neglect social responsibility when they do not have surplus profits to support societal needs.

306

Participant J was the president of an airline in Taiwan and also a faculty member

of a university. He estimated that giving to PHEIs was 6 parts corporate development, 3

part tax savings, and 1 part social responsibility. He also pointed out unfair competition

for PHEI fund-raising, in that historic national universities have two advantages: better

reputations and many of their alumni serve in high-ranking positions. Thus, these historic national universities have been able to raise funds from corporations very easily. The airline industry usually donates to PHEIs that offer academic programs related to aviation. Such donations will help the airlines develop in the future. In his opinion, the two goals of higher education are (a) to train students to gain basic common and professional knowledge and (b) to train students to engage in independent research.

Participant J said that his company not only donated financial resources but also aviation materials, such as airline cabin seats, to colleges. His company sometimes provided opportunities for university–industry cooperation, decided by the cycle of airline demands and college students’ responses. Finally, he emphasized that economic prosperity or the lack of it was the most important factor influencing corporate donations to PHEIs.

Participant K was the president of a company involved in saving energy. This corporation is an R&D company that integrates many small- and mid-sized companies to save energy and reduce carbon emission. He stated that the reasons for donating to PHEI for corporate groups and small- and mid-sized companies are different. Manager of corporate groups are concerned about partially bearing the burden of social welfare, enhancing their R & D capacity and ability, and lifting their corporate image; small- and

307

mid-sized companies want to raise the competitive potential and power, expand their

market share, and develop their marketing strategy. Furthermore, the president’s

preferences may differ from those of the members of the board of directors. He also

mentioned three characteristics of Taiwanese small- and mid-sized companies: (a) most of them produce machine parts, models, and added-value redesign for international companies and domestic firms; (b) entry-level positions eventually lead to top leadership position; and (c) a hard and endless struggle is necessary to succeed. He looked for R &

D partners according to their interests, professionalism, and loyalty over time. He believed that the integration of different industries or businesses would eventually lead to a revolution in industry in the future. According to his view the strength of Taiwanese small- and mid-sized companies is that individually they are the best; a weakness or difficulty is the challenge involved in integrating those with different areas and performing different functions. His ambitious plan was to build a strategic alliance with various companies from different areas and even different nations. By the time of this writing, this corporation had helped many companies integrate different systems or departments and increase their products’ pass-test ratios. Many small- and mid-sized companies joined some campus incubation/cooperation centers. Many colleges and universities have established centers on campus where business people can consult with academics on new products and projects as well as gain knowledge and skills. Companies must respond by funding these centers.

Many small- and mid-sized companies had investment ambitions and capital resources but no idea how to open the market. Their managers thought that the

308

government of Taiwan should get involved in helping them find solutions to combine

with other resources. The survival ability of Taiwanese small- and mid-sized companies was very strong, and their sensitivities were more acute; therefore, their expansion power in the market was very strong. The managers of small- and mid-sized companies decided individually to donate to PHEIs or not. His opinion of the self-sufficiency policy for

PHEIs was to use a compensation organism to help some PHEIs with lower fund-raising performance. He concluded that if PHEIs can help corporations deal with the potential rise in competition, increase the name recognition of the company, reach out to engage in more public welfare, assist companies in R & D for technical skills or productions and in market development for their products, corporations will gladly donate to PHEIs. Finally, the attitudes of corporate leaders toward donations to PHEIs determine whether or not donations are made.

Participant L was a vice president of an electronics group. In his experience, many electronics corporations supported technical research in exchange for obtaining critical know-how and new knowledge in order to enhance the corporation’s research and development. The company often donated to PHEIs in order to promote Research &

Development (R&D) for the company’s products, skills, or services. Ordinary corporate donations to PHEIs often resulted from a connection between the fund donor and fund recipient (a PHEI). For example, his corporation had made several donations to PHEIs, including his boss’s alma mater. In other words, technological businesses commonly gave to alma maters. Which PHEI his corporation choose to enhance the company’s research and development relies on the best researcher in specific areas or on one of the

309

best research in one domain. In addition, these selected researchers or research also have a good reputation among professional reviewers and members of society. The loose or close interaction between corporations and PHEIs also plays a critical role in the success of fund-raising. Globalization and internationalization of businesses and industries places all PHEIs in extremely competitive positions. In the past, the most stable fund sources came from the government; however, the contemporary funding world changed this concept. Instead, self-sufficiency that led to fundraising from a society became the most stable model. The tax system in place at the time of this writing corrected some policies regarding private donations to PHEIs: only cash donations were fully exempt from taxes; other donations to PHEIs of buildings or materials were only 25% to 50% exempt from tax. This correction resulted from scandals surrounding many donations to high education. Participant L concluded that one of the most important variables is good relationships between corporations and PHEI.

Participant M had been the owner of an organization, which for many years, had been in charge of offering educational programs to help graduates or college students to pass specific national examinations. She said many corporations’ donating to PHEIs resulted from the size of their profits and their inclination to give to society. The latter reason was the primary incentive for many companies.

Participant N was CEO of an air conditioning company. Company leaders decided to provide some scholarships to specific departments of PHEIs to encourage high school graduates to study in areas related to this company. His opinion was to have plenty of good interaction between PHEIs and corporations, noting that corporations like to hire

310

college graduates as well as take advantage of research done on campuses. At this

company social responsibility was the primary consideration in the decision to donate to

PHEIs.

Participant O was a vice president of a large company that produces bath and kitchen equipment. In Taiwan, large traditional and small- to mid-sized companies differ from technological companies in their reasons or incentives to donate to PHEIs.

Technological corporations usually give back to their alma maters and want to attract their graduates to their companies to do R & D. Large traditional and small- to mid-sized

companies often regard tax savings as the primary reason to donate to PHEIs. Company

executives with graduate diplomas show varied degrees of willingness to donate to

PHEIs. High-tech corporate leaders usually have graduate degrees, so they have a greater

tendency to donate. By contrast, leaders in traditional corporate industry typically have

only high school diplomas, so they tend to donate to PHEIs less frequently. Many

traditional companies donate to PHEIs for two primary reasons: social responsibility and

tax savings.

Participant O said that he was unaware of any PHEI contact with his company or

others for fundraising. He cited an information gap between college fundraising and

companies that he felt resulted from insufficient interaction between PHEIs and firms. He

perceived reluctance on the part of PHEIs to ask firms to donate to them because of the

tenuous relationships between them. The collaboration that exists between colleges and

companies usually occurs in EMBA programs and special projects or research. At the

time of this writing, Taiwan’s government granted permission for Taiwanese companies

311

to invest or operate businesses in China, which had a significant impact on Taiwan’s

universities: Any support these companies might have given to Taiwanese universities

would be lost to Chinese universities.

Participant O also said that Taiwan’s religions were literally fundraising

machines. The researcher asked him about how to change Taiwanese donation pattern

from regional religions to PHEIs. He recommended more incentives to donate to PHEIs,

such as increasing the promotion of their needs by relying on emotional factors, such as

calling alumni to involve them in campus development. PHEIs should increase human

connection in various ways. In addition they must raise their standards to improve the

quality of their graduates in order to meet entrepreneurs’ needs.

The reasons high-tech entrepreneurs readily donated to PHEIs according to

Participant O were that (a) their capital accumulated faster than the other industries like

traditional manufacturing industries that require more time and effort in manual labor; (b)

high-tech companies usually chose their leaders’ successors based on their competitive

abilities and performance, not blood relations; (c) high tech companies’ top managers had

more opportunities to contact international people than the traditional companies; thus

their perspectives on allocating their wealth were influenced by the global trends in

financial asset allocation and successor choices.

Participant P was the president of a construction company, which was

transformed from 100% government-sponsored to public-owned by issuing stock. He mentioned in his interview that Taiwan’s building construction atmosphere was characterized by the following: (a) Younger generations dislike the construction industry

312

because pay is lower and personal risk is higher; (b) this company struggled to improve

working conditions; (c) the impact of the World Trade Organization caused competition

from Japanese construction companies; (d) this company made an effort to build relations

with other nations. This company was committed to cooperation between higher

education and industry as well as giving to society to support PHEIs. This executive

usually sent his best employees to foreign universities to learn about innovations in the

construction areas. He compared high-tech corporations with traditional ones to explain the necessity of the PHEI fundraising policy: The former enjoy many tax exemptions or tax advantages resultant from government policy, but they also spend the majority of social resources, as compared with the latter, so this PHEI fund-raising policy could result in high-tech corporations supporting PHEIs with financial and material resources.

Participant Q was the president of a gasoline distribution company. He first

compared the cultural differences between the East and the West to show that Taiwanese

corporate leaders not usually are generous in their support of educational institutions.

They worked very hard. Becoming wealthy is very difficult, but being the poor is very

common. Taiwanese corporate leaders are generally conservative, he believed, desiring to

save economic resources as much as possible so as to guard against any future

misfortune. According to his general observation, five common incentives motivated

corporate donations to PHEIs: tax savings, hiring of human resources, building

cooperation between PHEIs and industry, social responsibility, and corporate growth.

Many Chinese people espouse the Chinese proverb that no more than three generations in

the same family keep affluence; affluent lives make people lazy. That is why many

313

family corporations generally do not remain in operation for a longer time and why some high-tech corporate leaders choose their successors based on their ability and management performance in order to secure the corporation’s perpetual operation. His opinion regarding donating to PHEIs was tantamount to a beneficial loss, a current but temporary expense, perhaps creating positive rewards in the future. Many entrepreneurs in Taiwan are typically very protective of their financial assets; they never reveal the extent of the wealth to the public. Taiwan’s society is consequently plagued with insecurity. Participant Q believed that this was the primary reason that corporate donations to PHEIs were unpopular in Taiwan. Taiwanese regional temples have traditionally served as local political meeting places and election centers. Similarly, the heads of urban political districts are influential in other elections in Taiwan, and Taiwan’s endless political disputes ecology between two major political parties influence national education policy. According to Participant Q, the most significant variables that influence decisions of corporate leaders about donations to PHEIs are the executive governance ability and performance of PHEI presidents, governmental tax cuts, and media promotions for corporations that make substantial contributions to PHEIs.

Participant R was the CEO of a company that manufactured semiconductors. He offered three reasons to donate to PHEIs that offer programs in areas vital to the semiconducting industry: social responsibility, tax savings, and recruiting human resources. He trusted the religious organizations to which he donated to bear social responsibility. People generally believe that these organizations use the donations they receive efficiently and effectively for social welfare. The three purposes of corporate

314

donations to PHEI according to Participant R are tax savings, recruiting of human resources, and good image in society. In the semiconducting area, many executives give priority to their alma maters when they donate. Without proper networking, they do not readily donate to PHEI.

Participant S was the senior manager of an electrical engineering corporate group.

The reasons he believed corporations to donate to PHEIs included the following: giving back to alma maters; cooperation among industries, governments, and higher education; and enhancement of their corporate image in society. He stated that companies that produce goods for daily consumption donate to bolster their corporate image in society.

The purposes of cooperation among industry, government, and the university include

PHEIs providing (a) specific ideas or solutions for industry, (b) theoretical bases for R &

D, and (c) a path to the recruiting of human resources. Some industries with more competitors, such as the liquid crystal display (LCD) industry, feel strong peer pressure to donate to PHEIs. According to his observations, two types of PHEI fundraising are in play: in one of them PHEIs pursues financial support from corporations, and in the other corporations are financial providers to PHEIs. In the former PHEIs actively pursue possible financial supporters through planned fund-raising; in the latter PHEIs raise funds passively as corporations aggressively search for cooperative PHEI partners in order to balance supply and demand on both sides to reach common understanding.

Participant T was the president of a Chinese medicine and massage enterprise. He believed that good karma was the major motivator for corporate donations to education specifically and to society generally. He blamed Taiwan’s democratic elections for

315

having a negative impact on educational systems and policies. Only right concepts and

behavior can improve the current sickness in society. He believed that PHEIs were plagued by personnel problems and misallocated funds. He emphasized that many bosses first take care of people’s needs around them and then take care of broader societal needs.

He stated that many Taiwanese lower- to middle-class people have devoted themselves significantly to social responsibility, but upper-class people have not. Two purposes of corporation–university cooperation are the establishment of a corporate culture, tradition, and the recruitment of human resources.

Participant U was the president of a digital Internet communications company. He valued his employees because they devoted their lives, merits, knowledge, and experiences to his company. He concluded that social responsibility should be one of the first considerations when deciding whether or not to give back to society or donate to

PHEIs. He also indicated that many small- to mid-sized companies in Taiwan cannot afford to donate to PHEIs because (a) their surpluses are too small and (b) their sales revenue is limited. He considered specific projects or departments at his alma mater that performed well in their fields or society as his donation recipients. He complained about the current higher education policies: The political issue of a united Taiwan and China or independence for Taiwan has interfered, and tensions affect educational policy makers and administrators. Finally, he believed that the relationship between education and society in Taiwan was mutually beneficial.

Participant V was the vice president of the semiconductor division of an integrated circuit (IC) distribution corporate group. He said that IC channels specially

316

emphasized their employees’ learning foreign languages and global views. He also mentioned that donations to PHEIs resembled an investment strategy to help his company earn profits or obtain advantages in the future. He concluded that when donating to a

PHEI, a company should have multiple incentives, not a single incentive that controls all decisions.

Participant W was the vice CEO of a diamond and jewelry company. He complained that problems were rampant in the Taiwan education system, such as higher education graduation rates, unfair resource allocation, and poor quality of students and graduates. He suggested that if Taiwan let the free market operate, then good schools would survive and poor ones would be forced to close.

Participant X was the president of an antiques company. He pointed out that

Taiwan’s society had deteriorated into utilitarianism, and that its education also deteriorated. His ideal for higher education would emphasize fundamental education, not utilitarian education. He preferred to focus on helping elementary schools instead of institutions of high education, where he saw an imbalance in attention to departments and majors. For example, departments offering majors leading to prestigious careers, such as those in medicine, law, and high-tech, attracted government attention as well as many students despite their talents and interests in other areas. Other worthy areas, such as basic scientific research, were ignored.

He supported the PHEI fundraising policy because he believed it could improve or balance fundraising done by religious organizations with the development of higher education. Corporations, which can provide financial and equipment resources to PHEIs,

317

should ask PHEI administrators to create specific curricula to help corporations train their

associates and help improve cooperation between corporations and PHEIs.

Participant Y was the president of a trading company. She worried about

Taiwan’s higher education because the quality of many college graduates seemed lower than many firms’ expectations and these graduates seemed to have a lack of survival skills and a competitive nature; she believed they had lost their future direction and their standing in society. She agreed to support higher education students for two reasons: social responsibility and the recruitment of human resources to fulfill the needs of her company. She even complained that contemporary education was producing unprepared, inferior workers, which meant these graduates were not producing something for society but instead consuming everything in society. They would be lost after graduation because they have no job skills. She concluded that many contemporary education policies have failed. She felt the PHEI fundraising policy was acceptable. Traditional industries and small- to mid-sized companies ought to support this policy to assume social responsibility

for their society and government. According to her observations, Taiwanese corporations usually donated to PHEIs for three primary reasons: corporate growth or development, social responsibility, and tax savings. She concluded that the tax-saving incentive was

perhaps the key variable when corporate leaders decided whether or not to donate to

PHEIs.

Participant Z was the senior manager of an agricultural materials and food

business. This corporate group was a traditional enterprise. This foundation associated

with this corporation supported minority groups in Taiwan. The founder of the

318

corporation had been devoted to social interests and public welfare services, so his children memorialized him in the name of the foundation, which sometimes supported student clubs or organizations at PHEIs. One reason they did so was to assume social responsibility, and the other was to retrain their employees in specific areas, such as language learning. He agreed with the PHEI fundraising policy because it would provide more opportunities for his workers to learn at the PHEI. He thought that connections between local enterprises and the global market were one consideration in entrepreneurs’ donations to PHEIs.

Participant ZZ was the president of a construction development corporation. His professional experiences have shown him that his company sometimes needed new construction methods, so his company asked researchers or professors in related areas at colleges to update a particular work process. He agreed with supporting PHEIs with scholarships or research grants to related departments or research areas in construction and architecture. He concluded that market demands motivated corporate donations to

PHEIs; that is, if society or the construction market needed a new work method, his company invested in or donated to this area at a PEHI in order to help his company become more competitive in the construction market.

REFERENCES

320

REFERENCES

Abbott, W. F., & Monsen, R. J. (1979). On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: Self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 501−515. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.

Aletheia University. (2006). Retrieved March 29, 2006, from http://www.mt.au.edu.tw/ AUinfo/04.html

Andreoni, J., Brown, E., & Rischall, I. (2003). Charitable giving by married couples: Who decides and why does it matter? The Journal of Human Resources, 38(1), 111−133.

Andrews, F. E. (1950). Philanthropic giving. New York: Sage.

Bacchetti, R. (2006). Many motives, mixed reviews: Foundations and higher education as a relationship richer in possibilities than results. In R. Bacchetti & T. Ehrlich (Eds.), Reconnecting education and foundations: Turning good intentions into educational capital (pp. 249−282). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bailey, A. L. (1994, September 20). Corporate giving loses ground to inflation despite an increase in pre-tax profits. The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 7, 10.

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Baron, B. (1994, Summer). Emerging philanthropies in East and Southeast Asia. Newsletter from Center for Global Partnership of the Japan Foundation, 2–5.

Baum, H. (1983). Planners and public expectations. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. Bender, H. E. (1985). Research design: Qualitative research: The discipline and the technique. In E. T. Nickerson (Ed.), The dissertation handbook: A guide to successful dissertations (pp. 46–62). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Bentley, R. J., Weber, A. & Hall-Russell, C. (1999). Religion, youth, and philanthropy: An annotated resource guide. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Bentz, V. M., & Rehorick, D. A. (2008). Transformative phenomenology: A scholarly scaffold for practitioners. In D. A. Rehorick & V. M. Bentz (Eds.), Transformative phenomenology: Changing ourselves, lifeworlds, and professional practice (pp. 3–32). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

321

Bernholz, L. (1999). The future of foundation history: Suggestions for research and practice. In E. C. Langemann (Ed.), Philanthropic foundations: New scholarship, new possibilities (pp. 359–375). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Bintzer, H. R. (1981). The many users of professional counsel. In F. C. Pray (Ed.), Handbook for educational fund raising: A guide to successful principles and practices for colleges, universities, and schools (pp. 216–223). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boris, E. T. (2001). Foundations. In S. J. Ott (Ed.). The nature of the nonprofit sector: An overview (pp. 202–210). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row.

Brady, M. K., Noble, C. H., Utter, D. J., & Smith, G. E. (2002). How to give and receive: An exploratory study of charitable hybrids. Psychology & Marketing, 19(11), 919–944.

Brittingham, B. E., & Pezzulo, T. R. (1990). The campus green: Fundraising in higher education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 1. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Brudney, V., & Ferrell, A. (2002, Summer). Corporate charitable giving. University of Chicago Law Review, 69, 1−28. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Burgoyne, C. B., Young, B., & Walker, C. M. (2005). Deciding to give to charity: A focus group study in the context of the household economy. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15, 384−405.

Burlingame, D. E. (1994). Empirical research on corporate social responsibility: What does it tell us? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 4(4), 473−480.

Burt, R. S. (1983). Corporate philanthropy as a cooptive relation. Social Forces, 62(2), 419−449. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Burke, J. C. (2002). The new accountability. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Funding public colleges and universities for performance (pp. 1–18). New York: Rockefeller Institute Press.

Campbell, D., Moore, G., & Metzger, M. (2002). Corporate philanthropy in the U.K. 1985-2000: Some empirical findings. Journal of Business Ethics, 39, 29–41. Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1991). Reliability and validity assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

322

Camegie, A. (1889, June). Wealth. North American Review, 148(391), 653–664.

Carroll, A. B. (1983, July 15). Corporate social responsibility: Will industry respond to cutbacks in social program funding? Vital Speeches of the Day, 49(19), 604─608. Southold, NY: City News.

Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibilities. Business and Society, 38(3), 268−295. New York: Sage.

Chang, M. (2000). Higher education reforms in Taiwan, R.O.C. Retrieved March 19, 2006, from http://www.tw.org/TaiwanUpdate.html

Chang, W. C. (2005). Determinants of donations: Empirical evidence from Taiwan. The Developing Economies, 43(2), 217–234.

Chen, P. C. (2002). Perspectives on higher education in Taiwan. Retrieved March 19, 2006, from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/cide/results.php?section= publications&id=3

Chiang, L. C. (2004). The relationship between university autonomy and funding in England and Taiwan. Higher Education, 48, 189–212. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Chung, O. (2000). Bureaucratic Bunglers? Taiwn Review. Retrieved on June 10, 2008, from http://taiwanreview.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=553&CtNode=128

Clark, J. M. (1939). Social control of business. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Clotfelter, C. T. (1989). Federal tax policy and charitable giving. In R. Magat (Ed.), Philanthropic giving: Studies in varieties and goals (pp. 105─127). New York: Oxford University Press.

Clotfelter, C. T. (2006). Patron or bully? The role of foundations in higher education. In R. Bacchetti & T. Ehrlich (Eds.), Reconnecting education and foundations: Turning good intentions into educational capital (pp. 211–248). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Committee for Economic Development (1971). Social responsibilities of business corporations. New York: Committee for Economic Development.

Conklin, T. A. (2007). Method or madness: Phenomenology as knowledge creator. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(3), 275–287.

323

Cook, W. B. & Lasher, W. F. (1996). Toward a theory of fund raising in higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 20 (1), 33-51. Retrieved on July 25, 2009, from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rhe/v020/20.1cook.html

Cope, J. (2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship, Theory, and Practice, 29(4), 373–397.

Craner, L. W. (2002). Promoting corporate social responsibility abroad: The human rights and democracy perspective. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.state.gov/g/ drl/rls/rm/11405.htm

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Cutlip, S. M. (1965). Higher education in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Cutlip, S. M. (1990). Fund raising in the United States: Its role in America’s philanthropy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review, 2, 70−76.

Deguchi, M. (1994, Summer). Comparison of Japanese and American philanthropy. Center for Global Partnership Newsletter, 5, 6−8. deMarrais, K. (2004). Qualitative interview studies: Learning through experience. In K. deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and social science (pp. 51−68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dowie, M. (2001). American foundations: An investigative history. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Drew, C. J., Hardman, M. L., & Hosp, J. L. (2008). Designing and conducting research in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Drucker, P. F. (1984). The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 26, 53−63.

324

Dumbaugh, K. (2006, October). Taiwan–U.S. political relations: New strains and changes. CRS Report for US Congress. Retrieved January 2, 2009, from http://fpc.state.gov/ documents/organization/74903.pdf

Ehrich, L. C. (2003). Phenomenology: The quest for meaning. In T. O’Donoghue & K. Punch (Eds.), Qualitative educational research in action: Doing and reflection (pp. 42–69). London: Routledge/Falmer.

Elliott, B. (2005). Phenomenology and imagination in Husserl and Heidegger. London: Routledge

Elliott, D. (2006). The kindness of strangers: Philanthropy and higher education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Estrada, W. A., & Eardley, A. L. (2008). Smother mother strikes again: Why government should stay out of pre-K. Home School Legal Defense Association. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/200809080.asp

File, K. M., & Prince, R. A. (1998). Cause related marketing and corporate philanthropy in the privately held enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1529–1539.

Fink, A. & Kosecoff, J. (1998). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Fitch, H. G. (1976). Achieving corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 1, 38−46.

Fitzpatrick, J. J., & Deller, S. S. (2000). Fundraising skills for health care executives. New York: Springer.

Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Fowler, Jr., F. J. (2009). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Freeman, D. F. (1981). The handbook of private foundations. Washington, DC: Seven Locks Press.

French, N. (2004). External funding and university autonomy. Retrieved March 31, 2006, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/61/15180954.PDF

Fry, L. W., Keim, G. D., & Meiners, R. E. (1982). Corporate contributions: Altruistic or for profit? Academy of Management Journal, 25(1), 94−106.

325

Gagen-McCarthy, M. (1993, January). A case for strategic planning for community foundations. NSFRE Journal, 24─29.

Galaskiewicz, J. (1989). Corporate contributions to charity: Nothing more than a marketing strategy? In R. Magat (Ed.), Philanthropic giving: Studies in varieties and goals (pp. 246−260). New York: Oxford University Press.

Gatewood, A. C. (1994). A comparative analysis and evaluation of community college foundations in North Carolina. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.

Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Gilmore, C. A. (1996). An analysis of fund-raising activities for the solicitation of private donations at selected public community colleges. Doctoral dissertation, University of Memphis.

Giorgi, A. (1985). Sketch of a psychological phenomenological method. In A. Giorgi (Ed.), Phenomenology and psychological research. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Giving in Numbers. (2008). Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (CECP). Retrieved on November 15, 2008 from http://www.corporatephilanthropy.org/.../giving-in-numbers.html

Giving USA: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2000. (2001). New York: American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel.

Grant, G. B., & Anderson, G. (2002). Customer relationship management: A vision for higher education. Web portals and higher education: Technologies to make IT personal. New York: Wiley.

Grohar, J. H. (1989). An assessment of effective fund-raising policies used at private, church-related undergraduate colleges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.

Hall, E. T. (1973). The silent language. New York: Anchor.

Hall, P. D. (1989). The community foundation in America, 1914─1987: Business giving and social investment in the United States. In R. Magat (Ed.), Philanthropic giving: Studies in varieties and goals (pp. 180─245). New York: Oxford University Press.

326

Hall, P. D. (1990). The dilemmas of research on philanthropy. In J. Van Til and Associates (Eds.), Critical issues in American philanthropy: Strengthening theory and practice (pp. 242–246). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hamilton, R. (2005). Multinational philanthropy: An opportunity to develop local will and skill. In L. Wagner & J. A. Galindo (Eds.), Global perspectives on fundraising (pp. 121–126). New York: Wiley.

Harland, S., & Griffiths, D. (2001). The international development directory. London: Directory of Social Change.

Heath, J. (1997). The measurement of privatization and related issues. In A. Ramanadham (Ed.), How does privatization work? (pp. 3–22). New York: Routledge.

Hemphill, T. A. (1999, May–June). Corporate governance, strategic planning, and public policy. Business Horizons, 57–62.

Hodgkinson, V. A., Weitzman, M. S., Toppe, C. M., & Noga, S. M. (1992). Nonprofit almanac 1990–1993: Dimensions of the independent sector. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hollis, E. V. (1938). Philanthropic foundations and higher education. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hopkins, B. R. (1991). The law of fund-raising. New York: Wiley.

Horn, B. S. (1996). An introduction to tax-exempt financing for 501(c) (3) organizations. In D. F. Burlingame, & W. F. Ilchman (Eds.), Alternative revenue sources: Prospects, requirements, and concerns for nonprofits (pp. 61–73). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Howell, J., Miller, P., Park, H. H., Sattler, D., Schack, T., Spery, E., et al. (2005). Reliability and validity. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University Department of English. Retrieved December 15, 2008, from http://writing.colostate.edu/ guides/research/relval/

Hsieh, Y. J. (2004). Exploring corporate donation behavior: A case study of Taiwan. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 12(1), 69−91, Haworth Press.

Hsu, M. T. (2006, April 30). For the time of lower birth rates, educational policy, and action. Retrieved March 19, 2006, from http://www.npf.org.tw/PUBLICATION/ EC/095/EC-R-095-003.html

327

Hsueh, C. T. (2004, February 22). Population trend is the important reference in education reform. Retrieved March 19, 2006, from http://home.kimo.com.tw/ lgbtnews2004/202/22-04.html.

Huang, J. T. (2003). The current development and challenges of higher education in Taiwan. Retrieved March 30, 2006, from http://www.nuffic.nl/positionering/epos/ 0204/ taiwan/backgrounds/backtaiwan2.html

Hummel, R. P. (1991). Stories managers tell: Why they are as valid as science. Public Administration Review, 51(1), 31–41.

Hunter, C. B. (1987). Fund-raising from private sources in public community colleges using not-for-profit foundation boards. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown.

Huque, A. S., & Zafarullah, H. (2006). Introduction: Challenge of governing development. In A. S. Huque & H. Zafarullah (Eds.), International development governance (pp. 3–12). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Husserl, E. (1907). Thing and space.Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ip, P. K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and crony capitalism in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 167–177.

Jacobs, D. G. (Ed.). (2006). The foundation directory. (28th ed.). New York: Foundation Center.

Jenkins, L. W. (1997). Inception, growth, and development of a community college foundation: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (2nd edition). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Johnson, H. L. (1971). Business in contemporary society: Framework and issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Johnson, O. (1966). Corporate philanthropy: An analysis of corporate contributions. Journal of Business, 39(4), 489−504.

Jou, J. Y. H. (1992). The related research of university fundraising. Taipei, Tawan: Department of Higher Education.

328

Kao, Y. H., & Kuan, Y. Y. (2001, July). Asia Pacific philanthropy consortium strengthening philanthropy in the Asia Pacific: An agenda for action. Retrieved March 29, 2006, from http://www.npo.org.tw/NPODev/index2-4.asp

Karst, K. L. (1960). The efficiency of the charitable dollar: An unfulfilled state responsibility. Harvard Law Review, 73, 433–434.

Keener, B. J., Ryan, G. J., & Smith, N. J. (1991). Paying attention pays off: How to market resource development. Community, Technical, and Junior College Journal, 62(1), 34–37.

Kelly, K. S. (1991). Fund raising and public relations: A critical analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kelly, K. S. (1998). Effective fund-raising management. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kiger, J.C. (2000). Philanthropic foundations in the twentieth century. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Knauer, N. J. (1994). The paradox of corporate giving: Tax expenditures, the nature of the corporation and the social construction of charity. DePaul Law Review, 44, 53─56.

Kreps, T. J. (1940). Measurement of the social performance of business. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office.

Labi, A. (2009). Across Europe, chasing the money: As government purse strings tighten, universities embark on American-style fund-raising campaigns. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(38), A39.

Langemann, E. C. (1999). Foundations in history: New possibilities for scholarship and practice. In E. C. Langemann (Ed.), Philanthropic foundations: New scholarship, new possibilities (pp. viiii─xviii). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Lee, S. (2008, April). Solutions to Taiwan’s education woes: The government five urgent tasks. CommonWealth Magazine, 395.

Lewis, P. F. (1993). Leadership: Our opportunity. NSFRE Advancing Philanthropy. Alexanderia, VA: NSFRE.

Li, G., Li, K.T., Ranis, G., & Fei, J.C.H. (1995). The evolution of policy behind Taiwan's development success, Hong Kong: World Scientific.

329

Lichty, M., & Stewart, D. L. (2000). The socialization process of new college faculty in family and consumer science teacher education. Journal of Family and Consumer Science Education, 18(1), 19–37.

Light, P. C. (2008, May). A government ill executed: The decline of the federal service and how to reverse it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lin, C. H., Yang, H. L., & Liou, D. Y. (2009). The impact of corporate social responsibility on financial performance: Evidence from business in Taiwan. Technology in Society, 31, 56–63.

Liu, Y. (2006). Determinants of private giving to public colleges and universities. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 6(2), 119–140.

Lo, H. C., and Tai, H. H. (2003). Centralization and decentralization in higher education: a comparative study of Hong Kong and Taiwan. In K. H. Mok (Ed.), Centralization and decentralization: Educational reforms and changing governance in Chinese studies (pp. 137–156). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.

Lo, M. C. (2004, March 10). Lower birth rates and educational crisis? Retrieved March 19, 2006, from http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/4/3/10/n482485p.htm

Logsdon, J. M., Reiner, M., & Burke, L. (1990, Summer). Corporate philanthropy: Strategic responses to the firm’s stakeholders. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 19(2), 93–109. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Manne, H. G., & Wallich, H. C. (1972). The modern corporation and social responsibility. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Marx, J. D. (1999, June). Corporate philanthropy: What is the strategy? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(2), 185–198. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, M. F. (1997). An analysis of selected public community college foundations in Michigan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

MoE. (2002). MoE Annual Report. Retrieved January 15, 2009, from http://www.moe.gov.tw

MoE. (2003). MoE Annual Report. Retrieved January 15, 2009, from http://www.moe.gov.tw

330

MoE. (2008). MoE Annual Report for Higher Education in Taiwan. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://www.moe.gov.tw

MoE. (2009). Statistical data of Ministry of Education in Taiwan, Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://www.moe.gov.tw

MOI. (2005). City and county. Retrieved March 29, 2006, from http://www.moi.gov.tw/ 921/縣市政府.xls

MOI. (2005). Private groups. Retrieved March 29, 2006, from http://www.moi.gov.tw/ 921/民間團體.xls

MOI. (2005). Regulations. Retrieved March 29, 2006, from http://www.moi.gov.tw/

Mok, K. H. (2002). From nationalization to marketization: Changing governance in Taiwan’s higher education system. Governanace: An international journal of policy, administration, and institution, 15(2), 137−159. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Mok, K. H., & Chan, Y. (2008). International benchmarking with the best universities: Policy and practice in mainland China and Taiwan. Higher Education Policy, 21, 469−486.

Moody, Jr. P. R. (1992). Political change on Taiwan: A study of ruling party adaptability. New York: Praeger.

Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 189─208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mullen, J. (1997). Performance-based corporate philanthropy: How “giving smart” can further corporate goals. Public Relations, 42(2), 42–48.

Muller, T. E., & Sepehri, V. A. (1988). Corporate support of higher education: Trends in Canada and the United States. Research in Higher Education, 28(2), 160–170.

Myers, N. F. (2000). The experience of providing management consultation to supervisors and administrators for employee assistance program directors in higher education. ETD collection for University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Paper AAI9967397. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dissertations/ AAI9967397

Newman, I., Ridenour, C. S., Newman, C., & DeMarco, Jr., G. M. P. (2003). A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In A. Tashakkori & C.

331

Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 167─188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nickerson, E. T. (1985). The dissertation handbook: A guide to successful dissertations. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Norton, M. (2003). The worldwide fundraiser’s handbook. London: Resource Alliance.

Orkodashvili, M. (2007). Higher education funding issue: U.S./ U.K. comparison. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http:// papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1312108

Overland, M. A. (2008). In Asia, American-style fund raising takes off: Development officers look to the United States as the gold standard. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(15), A22.

Parrish, T. (1973). The foundation: “A special American institution.” In F. Heimann (Ed.), The future of foundations (pp. 1─42). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Payton, R. L. (1990). Teaching philanthropy, teaching about philanthropy. In J. Van Til & Associates, Critical issues in American philanthropy: Strengthening theory and practice (pp. 167–187). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002, December). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 5–16.

Pray, F. C. (1981). Fund raising past and present. In F. C. Pray (Ed.), Handbook for educational fund raising (pp. 1–10). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pruszewicz, A., & Hulst, A. Z. (2005). Key dates and events in American philanthropic history 1815 to present. Retrieved April 29, 2006, from http://www.learningtogive.org/ papers/index.asp?bpid=31

Purcell, P. M. (2001). Issues and opportunities in endowment fundraising. Planned Giving Design Center. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.pgdc.com/pgdc/ article/2001/08/issues-and-opportunities-endowment-fundraising

Rawnsley, M.Y. (2010). Cultural and social change in Taiwan: Society, cinema, and theatre. London: Routledge.

Renz, L., Lawrence, S., & Treiber, R. R. (1995). Foundation giving: Yearbook of facts and figures on private, corporate and community foundations. New York: Foundation Center.

332

Rhodes, F. H. T. (1997). Introduction. In F. H. T. Rhodes (Ed.), Successful fund raising for higher education: The advancement of learning (pp. xvii–xxiv). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Rogers, M. F. (1983). Sociology, ethnomethodology, & experience: A phenomenological critique. MA: Cambridge University Press.

Rooney, P. M., Mesch, D. J., Chin, W., & Steinberg, K. S. (2005). The Effects of Race, Gender, and Survey Methodologies on Giving in the US. Economics Letters, 86, 173–180. Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2007). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process. Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Sargeant, A., & Jay, E. (2004). Fundraising management: Analysis, planning and practice. New York: Routledge.

Schiff, J. (1989). Tax policy, charitable giving, and the nonprofit sector: What do we really know? In R. Magat (Ed.), Philanthropic giving: Studies in varieties and goals (pp. 128─142). New York: Oxford University Press.

Schwartz, R. A. (1968). Corporate philanthropic contributions. Journal of Finance, 23(3), 479−497. New York: American Finance Association.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teacher College, Columbia University.

Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2003). Academic ranking of world universities. Shanghai, China: Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Retrieved March 21, 2006, from http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2003/top500list.htm

Shanghai Jiao Tong University (2004). Academic ranking of world universities. Shanghai, China: Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Retrieved March 21, 2006, from http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2004/top500list.htm

Stewart, D., & Mickunas, A. (1990). Exploring phenomenology: A guide to the field and its literature. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Su, J., & Huang, J. (2004, November 18). Greens’ approach legal and democratic, Cabinet says. Taipei Times. Retrieved March 30, 2006, from http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/ taiwan/archives/2004/11/18/2003211524

333

Su, Y. (2009). Transnational engagement, remittances and policy change: Political bargain between Taiwanese government and business people. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA’s 50th Annual Convention, New York. Retrieved January 2, 2009, from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p311932_index.html

Taiwan. (2007). Asia Pacific Philanthropy Consortium. Retrieved October 14, 2008, from http://www.asiapacificphilanthropy.org/node/23

Tan, A. C. (2006). Plus ca change: Continuity and change in Taiwan’s party system. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois. Retrieved January 4, 2009, from http://www.allacademic.com/ meta/p141280_index.html

Tempel, E. R. (2003). Contemporary dynamics of philanthropy. In H. A. Rosso and Associates (Eds.), Hank Rosso’s achieving excellence in fund raising (pp. 3–13). San Francisco: Wiley.

Teng, S. F. (2002). Taiwan’s universities enter the age of fundraising. Retrieved March 19, 2006, from http://www.sinorama.com.tw/main/en/show_issue.php3

THES world university rankings. (2006). Times Higher Education Supplement. London. Retrieved on March 4, 2008 from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/

THES world university rankings. (2005). Times Higher Education Supplement. London. Retrieved on March 2, 2008 from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/

Tsai, C. H. (1996). The deregulation of higher education in Taiwan. Retrieved March 19, 2006, from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News04/ textcy3.html

Tsu, Y. Y. (1912). The spirit of Chinese philanthropy: A study in mutual aid. New York: Columbia University.

Tu, C. S. (2005, June 25). The effect of lower birth rates: Taiwan’s Ministry of Education plans to report it in the White Book of Education Policies. Retrieved March 19, 2006, from http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/5/6/25/n965689.html

Tu, C. S. (2007). Taiwan’s educational reform and the future of Taiwan. Taiwan’s Minister of Education lecture for London College of Politics and Economics. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://english.moe.gov.tw/Ct.asp?xItem=7045&CtNode= 369&mp=1

Tung, H. M. (1997). The fund-raising activities in Taiwan universities. Master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taiwan.

334

Tuzzolino, F., & Armandi, B. R. (1981). A need-hierarchy framework for assessing corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 6, 21−28. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action- sensitive pedagogy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Varghese, N.V. (2007, January−March). Private higher education: Meeting society's goals. International Institute for Educational Planning Newsletter, 25(1), 9. Retrieved December 15, 2008, from http://www.iiep.unesco.org/fileadmin/ user_upload/Info_Services_Newsletter/pdf/eng/2007/jane07.pdf

Wagner, L. (2005). Fundraising, culture, and the U. S. perspective. In L. Wagner & J. A. Galindo (Eds.), Global perspectives on fundraising (pp. 5–12). New York: Wiley.

Wagner, L., & Galindo, J. A. (2005). Editors’ notes. In L. Wagner & J. A. Galindo (Eds.), Global perspectives on fundraising (pp. 1–4). New York: Wiley.

Walker Information System (2003). Mission Statement. Retrieved on October 10, 2008 from http://www.walkerinfosystems.com/about.htm

Watson, V. (2002) Do we learn from planning practice? The contribution of the practice movement to planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22, 178–187.

Webb, N. J. (1994). Tax and government policy implications for corporate foundation giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(1), 41–67. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Westphal, S. P. (2006, July 8–9). The great giveaway: New wave of philanthropists spend money now. Wall Street Journal, pp. A1, A8.

White, A., & Bartolomeo, J. (1982). Corporate giving: The views of chief executive officers of major American corporations. Washington DC: Council on Foundations.

Wilson, M. S., Hoppe, M. H., & Sayles, L. R. (1996). Managing across cultures: A learning framework. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Wolf, P. J. (1997). Why must we reinvent the federal government? Putting historical developmental claims to the test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(3), 353–388.

335

Worth, M. J. (2002a). Foundation of educational fund raising. In M. J. Worth (Ed.), New strategies for educational fund raising (pp. 37–38). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Worth, M. J. (2002b). The historical overview. In M. J. Worth (Ed.), New strategies for educational fund raising (pp. 24–35). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Wu, V. F. (2000). An empirical study of university-industry research cooperation – The case of Taiwan. Prepared for the workshop of the OECD-NIS Focus Group on Innovation Firm and Network, Rome, 2-3 October, 2000.

Wu, Y. M. (1998). A study on fundraising and management in college. , 3, 1–14.

Yang, S. (2001, March 13–17). Dilemmas of education reform in Taiwan: Internationalization or localization? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Comparative and International Education Society, Washington DC.

Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Yu, Y. (1997). Charting a wider course for higher education in the ROC on Taiwan. Retrieved March 31, 2006, from http://www.ineer.org/Events/ICEE1997/ Proceedings/paper176.htm

Yun, E. (1995). The road to autonomy. Taiwan Review. Retrieved May 20, 2008, from http://taiwanreview.nat.gov.tw/site/Tr/ct.asp?xItem=103&ctNode=119

Zhai, J. E., & Ellison, C. G. (2008). Religion and gender role: Attitudes in Taiwan